People who don't believe in God are broken

[meltzerboy]

The title of this thread clearly implies that “not knowing” God, and consequently Atheism, is the result of being broken, as opposed to simply lacking knowledge of God (ignorance).

You further implied that this “brokeness” is beyond their control by basically saying that the good news is incoherent to them when they hear it, and this is because they are broken. If something is broken it clearly implies that the object in question can no-longer function as intended. This makes the word Broken problematic both as an analogy and as a literal representation of Atheism.

This to me is very poor apologetics, because It would seem that Atheists are incapable of knowing God unless they are first fixed. This “fixing” evidently cannot be provided by quoting the gospel, as you yourself have ruled that out as ineffectual.

My interpretation of PRmerger’s statement is that one is broken in the sense that one is unwilling to search for G-d, not that one is incapable of doing so. Therefore, when something good happens–such as a free heart transplant–one refuses to go beyond the physical parameters of this world and therefore focuses on the pain and risk involved in the surgical procedure rather than the free gift to a dying person. Here is where free will comes in: one is always capable of changing directions toward becoming more receptive to the gift rather than the pain. The “brokenness,” however, suggests repeated decisions not to change course, which have become habitual.

 

[ReapReason]

Nope.

Perhaps you were unaware that Catholicism proclaims that Catholics are broken, too?

Thus, by your reasoning we would say that people are Catholics because they are broken.

Yet,everyone who’s broken (that is, all of humanity, with the exception of Jesus and Mary, of course) can’t be both atheist and Catholic.

Your putting words in my mouth.

The title of the thread is not all people are broken. The title is clearly “People who don’t believe in God are broken”

 

[ReapReason]

I said…

“if they don’t know that they are broken, and in fact think they are fine as they are, then your suggestion will sound incoherent to them. There is no reason for them to believe anything you say.”

Then PRmerger said…

“Right!”

Therefore, in the context of you telling them that they are broken, they are incapable of understanding that what you are saying is true because it will appear **incoherent **to them when they examine themselves and realise that their sensory experience provides no direct evidence that they are broken. Therefore there is no rational reason for them to accept what you are saying

Your answer should be “Right”

Also you seem quite cheerful to jump to historical facts in-order to avoid facing the flaw in your theory. It is irrelevant that people come to knowledge of God everyday. By your reasoning this is not possible accept by some irrational leap of faith or divine intervention, since you have explained quite clearly that they don’t know that they are broken. Therefore insofar as their own ability to understand, they have no rational reason to think they need healing, and neither do they have any rational reason to take what you say to be true.

 

[PRmerger]

My interpretation of PRmerger’s statement is that one is broken in the sense that one is unwilling to search for G-d, not that one is incapable of doing so. Therefore, when something good happens–such as a free heart transplant–one refuses to go beyond the physical parameters of this world and therefore focuses on the pain and risk involved in the surgical procedure rather than the free gift to a dying person. Here is where free will comes in: one is always capable of changing directions toward becoming more receptive to the gift rather than the pain. The “brokenness,” however, suggests repeated decisions not to change course, which have become habitual.

Yes! Thanks for that, friend.

I would just give one caveat: brokenness simply represents the human condition because of the loss of sanctifying grace due to Original Sin.

 

[PRmerger]

Your putting words in my mouth.

Not at all. I never said that you believe this. I am simply proclaiming the Catholic position.

The title of the thread is not all people are broken. The title is clearly “People who don’t believe in God are broken”

Okay. But if you’ll notice I gave a metaphorical “high five” to Alan’s comment (bold mine):

People who don’t believe in God are broken. They just don’t always know it unless they try believing in God. Those believe in God are broken and they know it.

So clearly I am operating from the POV that we’re all broken.

 

[PRmerger]

I said…

“if they don’t know that they are broken, and in fact think they are fine as they are, then your suggestion will sound incoherent to them. There is no reason for them to believe anything you say.”

Then PRmerger said…

“Right!”

Indeed.

Therefore, in the context of you telling them that they are broken,

I don’t know that I would tell them that they are broken as a means of apologia. No atheist wants to hear* that* truth. At least not at the beginning.

Best to give them arguments based on reason for God’s existence and go from there.

Later, when they are more receptive to certain unpalatable truths, we can break them with the news that they’re broken and need forgiveness. And that the good news is that forgiveness is readily available.

they are incapable of understanding that what you are saying is true because it will appear **incoherent **to them when they examine themselves and realise that their sensory experience provides no direct evidence that they are broken. Therefore there is no rational reason for them to accept what you are saying

This ^^ is incoherent to me.

Also you seem quite cheerful to jump to historical facts in-order to avoid facing the flaw in your theory. It is irrelevant that people come to knowledge of God everyday. By your reasoning this is not possible accept by some irrational leap of faith or divine intervention, since you have explained quite clearly that they don’t know that they are broken

You are conflating 2 unrelated concepts, Reap.

Atheists do not come to knowledge of God everyday (that is, those who don’t realize they are broken), but Seekers do.

Therefore insofar as their own ability to understand, they have no rational reason to think they need healing, and neither do they have any rational reason to take what you say to be true.

Right. (If by “they” you mean atheists who don’t know they are broken. Now, if by “they” you mean all broken people, including those who are seekers and know that they are in need of forgiveness, then you are way off the mark here. These are the folks who know that they need medicine and are therefore receptive to the free heart transplant.)

 

[Rhuarc]

The proper title for this thread would be:

All people are broken.

I suppose then that those who do not believe in God are like a shattered vase where as people of faith are like a pot with a ding in it. That ding can be hammered out, well you can’t fix a shattered vase. So while both are broken only believing in God can allow one to be fixed.

 

[ReapReason]

Right. (If by “they” you mean atheists who don’t know they are broken. Now, if by “they” you mean all broken people, including those who are seekers and know that they are in need of forgiveness, then you are way off the mark here. These are the folks who know that they need medicine and are therefore receptive to the free heart transplant.)

I was evidently talking about the people who don’t know. How are they to come to the knowledge of being broken if they have no evidence of it in their sensory experiences? If they have no experience of being broken, then they have no reason to seek a cure.

 

[Gaber]

I was evidently talking about the people who don’t know. How are they to come to the knowledge of being broken if they have no evidence of it in their sensory experiences? If they have no experience of being broken, then they have no reason to seek a cure.

To further that, do people who have faith realize that as a group they have a problem? And by “faith,” I mean faith as such, as a “container” if you will, regardless of its contents, those being beliefs of whatever sort, and distinct from knowledge, as scientific knowledge. In other words, while it may seem an extreme example, the idea of cargo cults and of Abrahamic religions are both faiths in that they are founded on observations and logic and experience, but they are materially unprovable in their essence. And if that is too extreme, then we still have nearly 40,000 christianist cults vieing to be the one true religion. Now of course, as Catholics we know ours is the OHCAC, bringing up yet another phase of what can be questioned if one is outside that buy-in, but even eliminating that, we have about 40K-1+x other faiths that all believe with equal sincerity that theirs is the one and only.

Now, is that a problem with science on a global scale? In terms of ethical application, in some cases yes, but what the science is is not in question. But what any particular religion is, is very much in question. Especially from the standpoint of every other religion and of science and of atheism.

So faith has a problem with homogeneity that science doesn’t, though both ethics and some principles of religion, eg the great commandments, might do good for those who use science. But then, they might do good for many who use religion, as well.

But I hope you see what I mean. Even as someone who is not an atheist, I have great difficulty with the idea of faith being radically different than knowledge, and with that the contents of faiths are so dynamically dissimilar that the aggregate of them is causing some serious problems relative to the safety of living in our world.

So what is wrong with faith that there can’t be the same sort of agreement as to what ought to constitute it as there is in science? After all, isn’t God basic to it all? if so, why is it in practice such a guessing game outside of any one individual’s conviction that something is so? And is that person;s conviction, whoever or whatever their religion is, conviction in the same way that we have conviction or knowledge about things common to us even on a grosser level, say gravity or maths? What is “broken” about faith that there is so much disagreement about what ought to be the single most clear cut and definite foundation of experience?

And the answer can’t be from the standpoint of “original sin.” It has to be something workable from the condition we are now in, regardless of a faith based explanation of origins.

Any ideas?

 

[catholictiger]

Discuss.

are their people who are broken who don’t believe in God? yes

are all non believers broken? no

can their be broken people who believe in God? yes

are all people who believe in God not broken? no

 

[prodigalson2011]

I suppose then that those who do not believe in God are like a shattered vase where as people of faith are like a pot with a ding in it. That ding can be hammered out, well you can’t fix a shattered vase. So while both are broken only believing in God can allow one to be fixed.

Hmm. I don’t think I’d extend it that far (shattered vs. dinged.) I’d say we’re all like people with a debilitating illness, but some of us refuse to go to the doctor.

 

[Gaber]

Hmm. I don’t think I’d extend it that far (shattered vs. dinged.) I’d say we’re all like people with a debilitating illness, but some of us refuse to go to the doctor.

And some of us go to quacks?

 

[Holly3278]

I strongly agree that people who don’t believe in God are broken. I am not sure what is meant by “broken” though. What I mean by it is that they are not fulfilling God’s will. They have a disordered belief about the universe that we live in. I do not believe it is possible that the universe could have come into existence all on its own. At one point in history there was nothing and then God created something and guided it until it reached the point of the universe as we know it today. Granted, we certainly don’t know everything about the universe that there is to know, far from it actually. I don’t think we will ever know everything there is to know about the universe unless God tells us everything there is to know when/if we reach Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

I was evidently talking about the people who don’t know. How are they to come to the knowledge of being broken if they have no evidence of it in their sensory experiences? If they have no experience of being broken, then they have no reason to seek a cure.

And yet, broken atheists do convert.

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/06/best-facebook-entry-of-the-month.html

So God whispers to the broken, and if she cocks her head towards that whisper–even ever so slightly–she will hear his voice, realize she is broken, be more receptive to the Good News…and the rest is history!

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm. I don’t think I’d extend it that far (shattered vs. dinged.) I’d say we’re all like people with a debilitating illness, but some of us refuse to go to the doctor.

Yeah. What he ^ said.

 

[PRmerger]

And some of us go to quacks?

:sad_yes:

And some of us are given the medicine but refuse to take it.
Some of us drink poison, thinking it is medicine.
Some of us live our lives with the medicine in our back pocket but spend our lives seeking alternative therapies, only to find out that the medicine Mommy gave us was the cure all along.

 

[Gaber]

I strongly agree that people who don’t believe in God are broken. I am not sure what is meant by “broken” though. What I mean by it is that they are not fulfilling God’s will. They have a disordered belief about the universe that we live in. I do not believe it is possible that the universe could have come into existence all on its own. At one point in history there was nothing and then God created something and guided it until it reached the point of the universe as we know it today. Granted, we certainly don’t know everything about the universe that there is to know, far from it actually. I don’t think we will ever know everything there is to know about the universe unless God tells us everything there is to know when/if we reach Heaven.

Thing is, what you are saying is predicated on belief. So what you are saying in effect is that people who don’t accept what is rationally unprovable have a disordered view of the Universe because they insist on knowledge in the place of a hypothesis.

We use the words “faith” and “belief” because they have a different referent than “Knowledge.” so somehow we have a situation here where trust in lack of evidence is superior in the estimation of those who have that trust, to skeptical inquiry by those who don’t, often with good reason, have such a working hypothesis. In fact, for many, it doesn’t work. I am not an atheist, and it doesn’t work for me, either.

You see, while an atheist can be swayed by a point by point demonstration of a provable and repeatable methodology, no such process can come from religion, any religion, however convinced the believer is that theirs is a logical progression. There is no commonality of premise forthcoming, and from the point of view of a skeptic, this makes all religions equally untrue. Indeed, how would you “prove” one as more factual than another? There are serious questions even in ours, despite claims of continuity and other factors, at least to someone with an inquiring mind.

And those questions regarding any faith are multiplied when one gets to explaining or relying on mysticism and contemplation to anyone, religious or not, if they haven’t been there, so to speak. Like book learning, swimming in water or drinking it has vastly different meanings than reading about it. Unimaginably so.

So “broken” is a totally arbitrary and not very useful term here, as it assumes that the OP “knows” something that by the very capability of asking such a question they obviously don’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Thing is, what you are saying is predicated on belief. So what you are saying in effect is that people who don’t accept what is** rationally unprovable** have a disordered view of the Universe because they insist on knowledge in the place of a hypothesis.

Except that the Angelic Doctor put that false idea to rest centuries ago. God’s existence is indeed rationally provable.

 

[Gaber]

Except that the Angelic Doctor put that false idea to rest centuries ago. God’s existence is indeed rationally provable.

No, Angel, my non atheism aside, there is no rational proof of the Deity. None. There is only a rationalization that can be used as encouragement to look, if one is so minded, which one such might do even without a “proof.” And one who has what might be called a Divine encounter might make sense of it in order to able to talk about it, but that would lack meaning, other than imagined, to anyone not having had that experience, as in the water analogy. As I indicated, “proofs” work for the already convinced. If the were proofs, even I would believe them, and I don’t. Belief is the least likely hypothesis. It is, after all, belief. right? So it is on believers to prove that faith and belief ought to have the same weight as knowledge.

The Angelic Doctor, for whom I have huge respect, near the end discovered what is the only proof there can be: he saw. His thinking and believing might have gotten him to that point, the ability to receive Grace, but neither of those was the Experience itself.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Angel, my non atheism aside, there is no rational proof of the Deity.

If you are going to address me, please use my screenname. Not “Angel”. Thanks.

The Angelic Doctor, for whom I have huge respect, near the end discovered what is the only proof there can be: he saw. **His thinking **and believing might have gotten him to that point, the ability to receive Grace, but neither of those was the Experience itself.

Yep. That’s exactly my point as well.

What you call “thinking” I call proofs for the existence of God based on reason alone.