Main Reason For Atheism

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

***Why? Why would certainty of “God” do that? **
*

BECAUSE GOD IS SO BIG!

---

BECAUSE WE ARE SO SMALL!

---

---

 

[TTM]

Gilbert Keith:

No freedom there. I sometimes think that after His love for us, the greatest gift God could give us is our human freedom … to choose everlasting life or everlasting doom.

By the way, the two are interconnected: To love is to be free; to be truely free is to love.

This is why John Paul II said freedom exists for the sake of love. This is also why sin is often referred to as “slavery”.

God bless!
TTM

P.S. By the way, cheddarsox, may I suggest using the boxes when quoting people? It just makes it easier to read. Here’s the format:
q u o t e ] quoted text here / q u o t e ] (without the spaces). Cheers!

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

Ah, so you worship nature?
**
That depends on what you mean by nature. If you are saying I worship trees and rocks, then no, I do not worship nature. If you are saying I worship that which functions and processes through nature, that which causes the interaction, then, yes, I do.**

So, why do you call nature divine?

** Because that which processes through nature, fills the role of the divine. It is the cause of all, the purpose of all, it is that which has control over all, it is pervasive, “knows” all, and nothing is outside of it. Because it does all that is divine, I refer to it as the divine.**

And how is that different than atheism

** To some people, there is no difference from what I believe and what an atheist believes. For people who believe in one God, and that anyone who doesn’t believe in that distinct deity is doomed, then, for them, I may as well be an atheist because my fate is the same. If you are one of those people, then it may be the same to you.

For people who have other concepts of the divine,who think there is purpose in discussing and exploring different belief systems, then there is indeed a difference. The difference being that as a pantheist, I recognize that there is an orderly, purposeful interconectedness in the universe, that there is purpose and intelligence beyond that which is a function of the human brain, that I, and everything else in the universe is subject to something that is both within all and greater than all, that I recognize and worship that which provides the order and purpose. I seek to explore and develop my awareness of my relationship to the divine. In my experience, that is very different from what atheists do.**

I should’ve looked at your profile sooner.
I dislike wasting time and enrgy.

** Wow, that is the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on any forum, that discussing with me has been a waste of time and energy.**

I am confused why you would point out that when discussing human nature you were speaking objectively about atheism, and when you were talking about the order of the universe, you were speaking subjectively from faith. Do you differ in any way on the subject of human nature than the atheistic position, other than you call nature divine? Why make the distinction?
**
I am confused why you continue to ask me questions after telling me our discussion has been a waste of your time.**

, how does it work through the laws of nature to make things happen? The laws of nature do not change do they? Therefore what was set in motion in the beginning just happens now because the laws are constant…cause and effect only. So why do you believe it is doing it’s thing? It seems to me it requires no participation at all. Is the divine you profess doing something presently?

** The divine does not merely work through the laws of nature, it is the laws of nature. The divine is that which causes all, so I believe that it caused the start of it all as well.

I believe it is doing its thing, because things are happening. Nothing can occur outside of the divine.

I am not sure what you mean by requiring participation. In that sense it is the same as your God. Your God did not need to create the universe, or humans. Nor does it NEED anything from humans. Neither does my divine, yet the divine, through its own processes brought about humans, and planets and stars and goldfish, it is working through all those things, but no, it does not need those things. If a thing exists, it is participating in the actions of the divine. The divine is that which holds all within it, it does not require anything of its creation. If it did, then clearly it would not be divine, because something would have more power than it does.

As far as things being set in motion and everything being cause and effect. In some sense, ultimately that is the truth of all belief systems. That is why people often argue over how can there really be free will when God knows everything that will ever happen. I guess this is the same thing.

I know that different belief systems argue about free will and the level of participation, but if we are all being honest, the divine, whether you picture it with a face or as a force, has the last word.

I do believe that all of the universe participates with the rest of it. I don’t know what level of free will any of it has, or how much is predetermined. Clearly things influence each other, there is communication and cooperation. I believe that prayer has effect. Everything we do has effect, as does everything that anything else does as well. It is so amazingly complex. I do not understand it, but I experience it as truth.

People sometimes ask me, why, if I can’t explain it, just join in a faith that claims to have the explanation. I can only respond that I can’t accept a smaller god than the divine I have come to know.

cheddar**

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

cheddarsox

***Why? Why would certainty of “God” do that? ***

BECAUSE GOD IS SO BIG!

BECAUSE WE ARE SO SMALL!

YEY!!! We found something we can agree on! I guess it is just our response to this knowledge that differs.

I feel tremendously blessed and lucky to be a part of the awesome bigness, and know that I am safe in it. I have nothing to fear because the divine is big enough to handle it.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

Wow, that is the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on any forum, that discussing with me has been a waste of time and energy… I am confused why you continue to ask me questions after telling me our discussion has been a waste of your time.

Sorry, Cheddar, I did not mean that discussion with you, (as a personal attack) has been a waste of time. Rather, that I thought we were communicating when it appears we were not. When you were arguing against my questions about human nature, I thought you were speaking from your perspective. But then you indicated that you yourself do not necessarily hold the beliefs you argue for, but that an atheist might hold such a position. That is frustrating. And when you spoke of the divine, I understood that to mean the common meaning of divine (God, or deism), when you did not mean that at all.

Do you understand what I’m saying? I was not insulting you, but merely expressing frustration (admittedly due to my assumptions) about conversations that were futile because of miscommunication. Discussion, if we uderstand what each other are trying to communicate is not a waste of time, regardless of how apart we may be in our beliefs.

I hope that clarifies my statements. I am sorry that I communicated that poorly.

Getting back to the topic at hand though, I am interested in discussing Pantheism, but this thread is not for that purpose. Perhaps we could discuss a statement you made earlier…you said you will argue “the cause of truth.”

So what does that mean exactly? What is the cause of truth? When discussing human nature, you have no scientific evidence to support the belief that certain attributes came about by naturalistic means. You also admit that science cannot answer the question of theism. Yet you argue against theism in the case of human nature. Can you explain how this is arguing the cause of truth? It seems to me the “truth” is that theism may in fact be the only answer to the question (since it is the only answer provided), and without injecting your Pantheistic faith into it, objectively, you have no reason to argue against that conclusion.

So my question is this: How is arguing against theism in regard to human nature, arguing “the cause of truth”?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Cheddarsox

*I feel tremendously blessed and lucky to be a part of the awesome bigness, and know that I am safe in it. I have nothing to fear because the divine is big enough to handle it.
*
Again, we have something to agree on.

And we do have different responses. I feel safe and blessed because, “alone and afraid in a world I never made,” Jesus assures me that I am blessed.

Why do you feel blessed? Who assures you that you are blessed?

 

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

Would anyone care to summarize their views on why evolution seems to help some people to evolve from theism to atheism, whereas others find easy accommodation of evolution and theism?

Dicusssions of evolution always seem to be restricted to scienfic, empriacle evidence. This makes some sense, as it is a scientific theory. However, the problem with theists discussing evolution is that it is very easy to become convinced, just as Naturalists are convinced, that scientific empiracle evidence, is the only credible kind of evidence for rational thinking people. This of course is not true, but because all the time is spent discussing only that which is scientific evidence, there is a natural (no pun intended) tendency to grow accustomed to that.

This of course leads to atheism. As Monarchy as pointed out many times in this thread, he sees no proof for God. Why? Because atheists limit themselves to scientific empiracle evidence (at least when it comes to God).

In truth, everyone, including atheists accept non-scientific evidence all the time and do form beliefs based on those things, even though there is no scientific evidence to support those beliefs.

For example do atheists require DNA tests before believing their parents are who they say they are? They should, if they are consistent…either that or they should withhold belief.

If an atheist has ever believed another person (parent, spouse, child, sibling, friend) loves them, then they have accepted another belief without scientific evidence to support it. They should, if they are consistent, refuse to believe someone can love them, for there is no scientific evidence to proove it is possible.

The religion of Naturlism, though many refuse to acknowledge it is a religion, has certain dogmas which cannot be violated. This religion allows for certain beliefs to be accepted on “proofs” that are non scientific, but does not allow belief in thiesm by similar proofs.

The interesting thing about this is that theists and naturalists do agree on one principle. Both believe that their position is unquestionably true. Naturalism is not typically recognized as a dominant religious worldview, but it is just that. To the naturalist however, it is not religion, it is simply the way things are. It is just “what everybody knows” (“everybody” being those enlightened enough to hold the same belief). This position is portrayed as so obviously correct that there does not need to be any attempt to justify it.

Naturalism has its own set of dogmas; independence of the individual against any authority, the primacy of pleasure, the relativity of morality, the impossibility of miracles. The dogmas of Naturalism prevent the person from being able to objectively examine any evidences on matters of spirituality. He has no choice but to reject them before it is even examined because “only matter exists”. Naturalists can therefore only look at certain types of evidence (scientific observations of the seen world).

The irony is that Naturalists claim the only credible knowledge is that which can be known scientifically. They maintain an absolute certainty that there is no design to creation, but only natural laws combined with matter. Yet this conclusion cannot be scientifically proven. The only acceptable evidence (science) cannot justify their position. Naturalism is therefore a kind of faith (or religion), a faith for which there is no real evidence.

 

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

**Would anyone care to summarize their views on why ** evolution seems to help some people to evolve from theism to atheism, whereas others find easy accommodation of evolution and theism?

I my experience, there are two kinds of people who can accommodate evolution and theism (at least Christianity anyway):

1. There are those who have not comtemplated or studied evolution enough to see any conflicts between the two, and accept both for that reason. The Catholic Church approve of this mindset because She has not said evolution is not true, other than to say we must believe we were created by God, that Adam and Eve are the two people from whom all of mankind has decended, and via other teachings, that Adam and Eve were the result of special creation and that Eve was made from the side of Adam.
2. There are those who fit the description given earlier by Cheddar, of those people who can accept two conflicting beliefs at the same time. Evolution and Catholicism in particular do contradict each other because of the Church’s teaching on Original Sin. There are other conflicts but this is the most glaring. Catholic evolutionists therefore reason that there must be an answer that can reconcile the two contradictory beliefs, because the Church has not officially said they are contradictory.

This is similar to the Naturalist’s reasoning for believing there must be a naturalistic answer for everything even though they themselves cannot explain how. The Catholic evolutionist believes the must be an answer for how the two can be reconciled even though they themselves cannot explain how. In my opinion, this is dangerously close to acceptance of Naturalism, because of the underlying reason a person feels compelled to say the must be an answer, thus placing Naturalism (evolution) on the same level of objective truth as God’s Word.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Chris W

The irony is that Naturalists claim the only credible knowledge is that which can be known scientifically.

Yes, and they tend to invoke Ockham’s Razor to back up this priciple, always somehow managing to forget that William of Ockham was a Franciscan priest who developed this principle to be applied only to the natural world.

Another irony of history … that the very supernatural thinkers despised by naturalists gave birth to the naturalists’ modus operandi.

Thank you for your most interesting answer to a difficult question.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

Cheddarsox

*I feel tremendously blessed and lucky to be a part of the awesome bigness, and know that I am safe in it. I have nothing to fear because the divine is big enough to handle it.
*
Again, we have something to agree on.

And we do have different responses. I feel safe and blessed because, “alone and afraid in a world I never made,” Jesus assures me that I am blessed.

Why do you feel blessed? Who assures you that you are blessed?

I feel blessed that I am a part of it all, that I have enough awareness to know I am a part of something greater, so I can enjoy being here on many levels at once, and marvel at it on many levels at once.

Who assures it? It is. It needs no further approval or validation. The fact that I am here means I am part of the divine. That is as much assurance as there will ever be.

I would say, if any “test” of blessedness is needed, the times I have endured “living hell” and yet was still able to feel and be in awe of the divine were an assurance that it has not been a “happy delusion” that deflates when trials arise.

cheddar

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

I would say, if any “test” of blessedness is needed, the times I have endured “living hell” and yet was still able to feel and be in awe of the divine were an assurance that it has not been a “happy delusion” that deflates when trials arise.

I think it is wonderful that your blessedness has been assured. My question, though, would be from whence comes this source of blessedness? Why does this profound sense and reassurance of the divine come to you? For that matter, if pantheism is such a powerful connection with the divine, why does it not come to all of us, rather than theism or atheism?

The theist, by the way, also sees God in the universe and is assured by the glory of nature that there is something more glorious beyond nature. No less a naturalist than Isaac Newton, among others, drew this conclusion. Yet he was not drawn to patheism but to Christianity because he could not see the universe as sustaining itself without some great Designer behind it.

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

Perhaps we could discuss a statement you made earlier…you said you will argue “the cause of truth.”

So what does that mean exactly? What is the cause of truth?

**In this case it means stepping in when something is being misrepresented. I will be honest with you. I am not going to take the time right now to go back through these 200+ posts and look it all up. But regularly, theists on forums make statements reguarding atheists and/or atheism that are false. (the same is done in any group reguarding different belief systems, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malice) If I see that happen, and I feel I have something to contribute that will correct the erroneous statement, I step in.

When people claim atheists believe that everything is random, I step in. When people claim pagans are all satanists, I step in. When people claim Catholics are idolators, I step in. Because false information hinders any progress toward understanding.

Even though I am not an atheist, or a Catholic, I know enough about them and their beliefs to step in, some of the time, and offer clarification.
**
When discussing human nature, you have no scientific evidence to support the belief that certain attributes came about by naturalistic means. You also admit that science cannot answer the question of theism. Yet you argue against theism in the case of human nature. Can you explain how this is arguing the cause of truth? It seems to me the “truth” is that theism may in fact be the only answer to the question (since it is the only answer provided), and without injecting your Pantheistic faith into it, objectively, you have no reason to argue against that conclusion.

**I argue that there is not compelling evidence that a deity is the source of human nature. There IS evidence that many facets of human nature have a natural cause. ( I believe we disagree on this issue) I can understand why atheists and naturalists cannot accept a deity as the cause. ( I myself don’t accept a deity as the cause) The fact that “science” does not have all the answers does not mean that everyone can, will or should accept deity as the cause. I argue that, because I believe it.

200 yrs ago there was no germ theory, and people could have chosen to use deity as the exclusive default for why/how illness was spread. But many people chose not to, continued to search for a natural explanation, and discovered one.

Anyone, at any time is free to choose to stop searching for a natural explanation for anything, and default to whatever they choose. If, in this case, you are comfortable that there is no natural explanation, and thus the cause is deity. That is fine.

I am not comfortable doing so, nor does doing so fit in with my religion.

**

So my question is this: How is arguing against theism in regard to human nature, arguing “the cause of truth”?

**I have argued it because I see valid reasons why people do not accept a deity as the cause for human nature. When people present theism as the only “reasonable” answer, I protest, because I can see that there are other possibilities as well.

I like to discuss issues, and I am willing to do so “impersonally”, to throw ideas around and really examine them. I think it is worth the time and energy, even to explore the validity of ideas that I do not personally ascribe to. So I can play the “devil’s advocate” in an effort to get an issue to be really looked at, for my own benefit, and hopefully the benefit of others who are interested in the subject.

There is no harm in discussing, and even conceding that there is validity in another viewpoint.

I come here to discuss ideas, I don’t have a conversion agenda. Is this forum is about converting, and you feel I am hampering the effort? I thought we were just discussing different beliefs.

cheddar**

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

cheddarsox

*I would say, if any “test” of blessedness is needed, the times I have endured “living hell” and yet was still able to feel and be in awe of the divine were an assurance that it has not been a “happy delusion” that deflates when trials arise.
I think it is wonderful that your blessedness has been assured. My question, though, would be from whence comes this source of blessedness?

The source of the blessedness is the divine.

Why does this profound sense and reassurance of the divine come to you?

**I’m lucky I guess! Beyond that, I have spent my whole life “searching”, so I guess in that sense I met the divine part of the way, but really, I do feel very lucky to have come to know what I know, and have the faith I do. Faith is a gift, and I have chosen to cultivate whatever seeds of faith I have been blessed with along the way. I find religion to be a very useful tool for navigating my life, and I have spent much time and energy cultivating my faith.

A favorite theory of your is that atheists dont find a god, because they don’t want there to be a god. I will let the atheists respond to that, but for me, I do want there to be something in charge of it all, so I do tend to interpret the evidence in favor of the divine. I would guess that makes me more likely to have experiences that support my belief.**

For that matter, if pantheism is such a powerful connection with the divine, why does it not come to all of us, rather than theism or atheism?

**I don’t know, probably for the same reasons that not everyone accepts theism or atheism. Different cultures, experiences, upbringing, agendas, awareness etc.And, probably, because none of the explanations mankind has so far come up with completely answer the questions of our hearts. So we piece together the puzzle with the bits we have and we end up with many different, incomplete images.

I don’t claim that I have the entire truth, or that everyone should abandon their faith and believe what I believe. I am where I am, and I have reasons to be here, but I don’t pretend to know what everyone else should believe. I suspect there are good reasons that there are so many different religions, and I am certain that human kind’s search for truth is much enriched by the diversity of ideas. If we all believed the same thing, I suspect we’d get smug and stop searching.**

The theist, by the way, also see God in the universe and is assured by the glory of nature that there is something more glorious beyond nature. No less a naturalist than Isaac Newton, among others, drew this conclusion. Yet he was not drawn to patheism but to Christianity because he could not see the universe as sustaining itself without some great Designer behind it.

I can’t answer for anyone’s faith but my own. Are you implying that I should accept Christianity becaus Issac Newton did?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

*I can’t answer for anyone’s faith but my own. Are you implying that I should accept Christianity becaus Issac Newton did?
*
No, just showing you another point of view that in some respects converges with your own, yet departs from it in other respects.

No doubt you already were familiar with Newton’s argument for a Designer God as opposed to pantheism. Perhaps others in this forum were not and would find some reassurance in the fact that intellects great and small have knelt to the genius of God the Creator.

And if not for your benefit, I only make this point for the benefit of others in this forum to dispell the widespread notion among skeptics that religion is delusional and mainly useful for people weak in intellect and character.

I think there are people who believe this … and I take every opportunity to remind them to the contrary.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

No doubt you already were familiar with Newton’s argument for a Designer God as opposed to pantheism. Perhaps others in this forum were not and would find some reassurance in the fact that intellects great and small have knelt to the genius of God the Creator.

And if not for your benefit, I only make this point for the benefit of others in this forum to dispell the widespread notion among skeptics that religion is delusional and mainly useful for people weak in intellect and character.

I think there are people who believe this … and I take every opportunity to remind them to the contrary.

Agreed! hey, this is getting spooky, three times now in the same thread!

cheers!
cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

I have argued it because I see valid reasons why people do not accept a deity as the cause for human nature. When people present theism as the only “reasonable” answer, I protest, because I can see that there are other possibilities as well.

I have not heard any other reasonable alternative answers though, Cheddar. Nor have you offered any. You seem content to not know, which is your choice. What I would expect to hear from an objective tossing around of ideas would be something like “Yes, I suppose it is possible than God did what you say He did, but I don’t find that argument compelling enough to cause belief in God.” That is simple and objective. Wihtout a faith based reason to deny it, it is reasonable to believe. If you said that I missed it. My impression was that you are saying there is no reason to believe God did such, which is incorrect and different, albeit subtly.

There is reason to believe God gave mankind our ability to reason, free will and conscience, because so far it is the ONLY answer to the question, not merely one possibility. Since it is the only answer so far, it does justify consideration. In fact, even though this topic wouldn’t be up for consideration, isn’t that how the scientific process works? If a scientist poses a possible solution to a question, isn’t that solution considered and tested until such time as it is disproven? Why should our logic be different now? How far would science have advanced if when someone comes up with a theory, it is discarded out of hand because of philosophical dislike, and never put to real examination? That is how our understanding increases isn’t it?

By itself it may not be compelling enough to cause belief, but I have never maintained that there is a single piece of evidence that can accomplish that. This is merely one in a long line of evidences which put together into a “convergence of evidences” (add well documented miracles, the life of Jesus of Nazareth, personal testimonies, other unanswerable questions by other means, etc) makes a rather compelling case.

cheddarsox:

I like to discuss issues, and I am willing to do so “impersonally”, to throw ideas around and really examine them. I think it is worth the time and energy, even to explore the validity of ideas that I do not personally ascribe to. So I can play the “devil’s advocate” in an effort to get an issue to be really looked at, for my own benefit, and hopefully the benefit of others who are interested in the subject…

A noble endeavor, but very difficult to achieve I think. For example, have you rebutted Monarchy? He said he would have to abandon reason to believe in God. I have challenged him on that statement, but not until long after he said it. Did you objectively challenge his statement? If you did I missed it. I would think in your objective tossing around of ideas, testing the validity of arguments, that would’ve been of interest to you. Objectivity does not justify playing devils advocate only against one point of view.

cheddarsox:

There is no harm in discussing, and even conceding that there is validity in another viewpoint.

I agree.

cheddarsox:

I come here to discuss ideas, I don’t have a conversion agenda. Is this forum is about converting, and you feel I am hampering the effort? I thought we were just discussing different beliefs.

Honestly, yes, I am always trying to convert others to my way of thinking…that is how I test my beliefs. I think my motives are transparent. I believe you when you tell me you do not have a conversion agenda. I’m not convinced the motives matter.

 

[Chris_W]

Since it has been said that science is neutral on the issue of God, it seems to me the only truely objective position for a person who relies exclusively on scientific evidence for the formation of beliefs to take would be to take the position of science itself, and that is to be agnostic.

Open question, to whomever would like to answer:

So how is it that people who say they rely on science and observable evidences for their beliefs, can be atheistic?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ChrisW

So how is it that people who say they rely on science and observable evidences for their beliefs, can be atheistic?

Beats me.

But you’re right. How do you observe, measure, or calculate something you say doesn’t exist?

Maybe AnAtheist will show up to answer your question?

 

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

How do you observe, measure, or calculate something you say doesn’t exist?

Right. My question is just worded differently. How does a person who only considers scientific evidence (which is neutral on God) arrive at any position other than neutrality?

If one only looks at scientific info, then the logical response to the question of God would be “I don’t know…I do not consider the question…perhaps He does and perhaps He does not exist”. Seldom is that the position I find.

Therefore, I conclude that atheists must consider other types of evidence, since they have a position that is other than neutral. The hard part for me is trying to determine what those other kinds of acceptable evidence may be. This is seldom disclosed by atheists, (in my experience) which makes it difficult to answer your initial question in this thread “the main reason for atheism”.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ChrisW

Therefore, I conclude that atheists must consider other types of evidence, since they have a position that is other than neutral. The hard part for me is trying to determine what those other kinds of acceptable evidence may be. This is seldom disclosed by atheists, (in my experience) which makes it difficult to answer your initial question in this thread “the main reason for atheism”.

They do not consider other types of evidence … I don’t think. Their attitude is that the burden of proof is on the theist. The absence of proof positive is in itself an argument for not believing. It’s the standard “I don’t believe in God any more than I believe in Santa Claus.”

All this hinges on what you said earlier. Their thinking apparatus is boxed in by a limited *modus operandi. *How can we prove to the atheist’s satisfaction when the only evidence he will consider is empirical? But this is precisely the problem. No theist defines God as something created and therefore visible in any empirical way. So there seems to be a dilemma on both sides, because neither side will give to the other side any concession.

This is why faith is so often called a “leap” over the chasm separating the visible from the invisible. And that’s as it should be. We have to have faith most of all because people who do not want to know God will find a way not to know Him. They will reject the evidence even of their senses if they have to … just as the evidence of God in the flesh through the miracles of Jesus was rejected by the Jews.

And if a miracle was performed today for an atheist, he would find a way to deny that it was a miracle (fakery, hallucination, unknown laws of nature, etc.) because he does not want to believe in the existence of God. I am really convinced that rejection of God lies in the will rather than in the intellect, and the intellect simply obey the orders of the will; which is to say that it bends itself backwards, even into pretzels, to explain away all the signs God has sent us that He is out there reaching and calling to us.

What the atheist will not do … indeed cannot do because in his unconscious mind he has ordered his conscious mind not to do it … is to find his motive for not wanting to find God. This is the same phenomenon that psychiatrist Scott Peck complained about in The Road Less Traveled when he wrote about the frustrating problem of helping patients find the cause of their illness. He could lead them up to a certain point in exploring their motives for thinking the way they did or behaving the way they did … but beyond a certain point he could not lead them because they were afraid to face the truth that they had managed to bury under a mountain of self deceptions.

This may be one of the reasons that Peck came around to using Christian thought in the treatment of his patients … how easy it would be, for example, to remind certain patients of Jesus’ consolation that we have but to learn the truth because the truth will make us free.