Philosophical discussion with atheism - Starting point?

[Harmony1988]

I was watching the movie “Karol”, the movie on JPII, and when he was addressing the Vatican II council he said something along the lines of moving away from proofs of the “existence of God”, but rather engaging the point of the solitude of man.

I thought that was quite intriguing, of course by that he didn’t mean to burn down the Summa and start 3 part harmonies with people singing tragedies in the background, but where do you he think he was getting at?

I think there are many aspects to this, the first that came to mind was the uniqueness of man, as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom in the many ways that we are different, and the drive that each one of us has to be loved, ultimately how people try to fill that void, where does it stem from, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[ricmat]

I was watching the movie “Karol”, the movie on JPII, and when he was addressing the Vatican II council he said something along the lines of moving away from proofs of the “existence of God”, but rather engaging the point of the solitude of man.

I thought that was quite intriguing, of course by that he didn’t mean to burn down the Summa and start 3 part harmonies with people singing tragedies in the background, but where do you he think he was getting at?

I think there are many aspects to this, the first that came to mind was the uniqueness of man, as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom in the many ways that we are different, and the drive that each one of us has to be loved, ultimately how people try to fill that void, where does it stem from, etc.

Thoughts?

I’m not sure of the value of discussing this with atheists, but JP2 covers this issue in great depth in Theology of the Body. I’ve read an introductory book called Theology of the Body for Beginners (by C. West), and am currently part way through Man and Woman He Created Them, A Theology of the Body by JP2. His analysis is fascinating, but is solidly grounded in the bible, so…it seems unlikely to me that atheists would want to get involved.

But I may be wrong. I hope your thread gets some traction

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I was watching the movie “Karol”, the movie on JPII, and when he was addressing the Vatican II council he said something along the lines of moving away from proofs of the “existence of God”, but rather engaging the point of the solitude of man.

I thought that was quite intriguing, of course by that he didn’t mean to burn down the Summa and start 3 part harmonies with people singing tragedies in the background, but where do you he think he was getting at?

I think there are many aspects to this, the first that came to mind was the uniqueness of man, as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom in the many ways that we are different, and the drive that each one of us has to be loved, ultimately how people try to fill that void, where does it stem from, etc.

Thoughts?

people are defined to a large degree by the positions they hold on issues, they will defend them, like they would their own flesh.

after all, the proposition that we came from nothing is, on its face, false

when people choose that position, whatever their reasons, they are doing so not because it makes a literal, logical sense but rather because holding to atheism provides them with some other benefit that is more important than truth.

in other words there is some motivation they do not admit to, anti-religion, a dislike of authority, intellectual ego, frustrated sexuality, maybe a nun embarrassed them at school, if you pay attention long enough, you will find these sorts of things when reading “between the lines”

JP was very, very discerning. so i take him to mean that the best way to deal with atheists is not to disprove their arguments as that just leads to resistance,

instead one should share with them in the common sufferings, and solitude that we all face as human beings. in order to bring them to G-d

or more simply stated, ‘don’t push, lead’

 

[Fran65]

I have said on another thread that my experience is that without God the world is an empty, meaningless and cruel place. I say that as an intelligent, professional woman with a busy job, family and friends.

If man is alone and without God, then he is truly lost. It does not matter how much one fills one’s life with work, activity and other people; in those still cold hours before dawn the loneliness and solitude can be shattering. Many suicides occur between 2 and 4am for that reason.

I’m not sure whether this is what JPII meant.

 

[ricmat]

I have said on another thread that my experience is that without God the world is an empty, meaningless and cruel place. I say that as an intelligent, professional woman with a busy job, family and friends.

If man is alone and without God, then he is truly lost. It does not matter how much one fills one’s life with work, activity and other people; in those still cold hours before dawn the loneliness and solitude can be shattering. Many suicides occur between 2 and 4am for that reason.

I’m not sure whether this is what JPII meant.

I’m not an expert on this, but I believe that the solitude that JP2 refers to in TOTB (and probably elsewhere) refers to Adam’s solitude before the creation of Eve. Not until the creation of Eve could Adam have a “person” with whom to share the total self giving love which is expressed in the Trinity, and which we are called to (eventually) participate in in Heaven. Adam could not be male without Eve, and Eve could not be female without Adam.

Before we can marry God in Heaven, we have a practice session here on earth with another person specifically intended for that purpose.

I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but it’s the best I can do at the moment.

 

[Genesis315]

I have found that a good key to evangelization is finding common ground and building upon it. With Muslims, for example, we acknowledge one God/Creator. With Protestants we share the Trinity, etc. But with atheists, all we really share is our humanity. We can show how man himself points to God and man can only find his fulfillment there and in the Incarnation. I have read more former atheists/agnostics who have come to the faith this way than by deductive proofs, etc. (although I have read a few).

 

[Harmony1988]

people are defined to a large degree by the positions they hold on issues, they will defend them, like they would their own flesh.

after all, the proposition that we came from nothing is, on its face, false

when people choose that position, whatever their reasons, they are doing so not because it makes a literal, logical sense but rather because holding to atheism provides them with some other benefit that is more important than truth.

in other words there is some motivation they do not admit to, anti-religion, a dislike of authority, intellectual ego, frustrated sexuality, maybe a nun embarrassed them at school, if you pay attention long enough, you will find these sorts of things when reading “between the lines”

JP was very, very discerning. so i take him to mean that the best way to deal with atheists is not to disprove their arguments as that just leads to resistance,

instead one should share with them in the common sufferings, and solitude that we all face as human beings. in order to bring them to G-d

or more simply stated, ‘don’t push, lead’

I think this post is pretty much a summary of what he meant, especially the bit in red. It’s a bit strange though, it hasn’t been too closely adopted, but there definitely is that change happening.

Theology of the Body is of course very closely linked to this issue.

 

[Benedictus]

I thought that was quite intriguing, of course by that he didn’t mean to burn down the Summa and start 3 part harmonies with people singing tragedies in the background, but where do you he think he was getting at?

I think the idea is that trying to prove God’s existence hasn’t converted too many people. Most honest Christian philosophers will admit that there’s never been a truly successful proof of the existence of God. Aquinas’ Five Ways are at best a good debate topic.

Appealing to a person’s ‘need’ for God or desire to believe in something bigger than herself is more likely to attract people.

I think there are many aspects to this, the first that came to mind was the uniqueness of man, as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom in the many ways that we are different, and the drive that each one of us has to be loved, ultimately how people try to fill that void, where does it stem from, etc.

I think the ‘uniqueness of humans’ argument won’t get you very far with non-theists. Most of us don’t believe that there is some sort of giant chasm separating us from other animals. Although it’s obviously true that we’re much more intelligent than the highest extent primates, modern biology has demonstrated that elements of a lot of what people once thought separated us from other animals can be found in other animals, especially primates.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think the idea is that trying to prove God’s existence hasn’t converted too many people. Most honest Christian philosophers will admit that there’s never been a truly successful proof of the existence of God. Aquinas’ Five Ways are at best a good debate topic.
.

first cause has never been answered. all the arguments against it that i have seen tend to devolve into etymological word games.

nor is one dishonest for recognizing the flaws in the arguments against it. the hard thing to believe for most people is the idea that the observable universe came from nothing. which is the implicit assertion of all forms of atheism.

strong atheism requires great faith, weak atheism requires deliberate obtuseness. (mean that in the technical sense)

i would be like to hear what arguments against it you find persuasive.

as to the rest of your post, yes i am embarrassed by some of the arguments put forward. the reasoning can be less than satisfactory.

 

[Harmony1988]

I think the idea is that trying to prove God’s existence hasn’t converted too many people. Most honest Christian philosophers will admit that there’s never been a truly successful proof of the existence of God. Aquinas’ Five Ways are at best a good debate topic.

Appealing to a person’s ‘need’ for God or desire to believe in something bigger than herself is more likely to attract people.

I think the ‘uniqueness of humans’ argument won’t get you very far with non-theists. Most of us don’t believe that there is some sort of giant chasm separating us from other animals. Although it’s obviously true that we’re much more intelligent than the highest extent primates, modern biology has demonstrated that elements of a lot of what people once thought separated us from other animals can be found in other animals, especially primates.

I agree with what you said, I didn’t have much time to expound on what I meant earlier, it was just a quick thought that came into my mind, pertaining to the distinctions between humans and the rest.

Peter Singer is perhaps one person who has tried to codify human behaviour to the level of primates, for various reasons. There are of course elements that are similar to other animals, and that’s simply because, from a theological point of view: they are God’s creation too.

I also didn’t specify what I meant by the uniqueness of humans, but rest assured, I’m sure you could pick many yourself, extrapolated from the simple point of our intelligence being superior. Though scientific progress helps understand other animals behaviour, concomitantly it furthers us too…