Please Help-I might become an atheist

[S_V7]

I really need some help in dealing with these articles. They claims to refute many arguments for the existance of God and since I’m just a novice (not even) in my philosophical thinking, these articles really runs circles around my head.

religionislies.com/godnoevidence.html

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/pudding.htm

They’re rather long, but if anyone can answer only one or more of these arguments I’ll be very grateful. I feel at the moment a disgusting fear of possibly becoming an atheist as a result of these and other like arguments, and I can’t fathom the thought of life as meaningless and existance worthless…‘we’re all going to die anyway so why bother with love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equlity, happiness, education, freedom, power, finding a cure for such disease, contributing to society etc… it all ceases to exist at death so why care’ kind of feeling .

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

This was also posted as an answer to the question “Where can I find a formal refutation of Aquinas’ ‘Five proofs of God’, the ‘Quinquae viae’?”

For what they’re worth, my own inexpert attempts yielded the following in ten minutes’ work:

1. The ‘Unmoved Mover’ fails at “everything that is moved is moved by a mover”. This is untrue in the quantum world at least, and even without this hole, there is no necessity for the Prime Mover to be supernatural.

1. Ditto the ‘First Cause’ argument fails at “everything that is caused is caused by something else”, which is untrue in the quantum world, where uncaused events are commonplace. Again there is no requirement for a First Cause to be supernatural.

1. Contingency fails at “something can’t come of nothing”, which applies only in the world of Classical Matter. Virtual particles don’t obey this, and the Big Bang may be a similar event. Both the ‘parallel universe’ and current M-Theory models don’t obey this.
   2 months ago

1. The ‘Degree Argument’ is particularly absurd: first, the notion of ‘perfection’ is anthropocentric; and even allowing this notion, ‘ultimate perfection’ is neither implied, nor assumed, nor required at all.

5 The ‘Argument from Design’ has been comprehensively demolished elsewhere. It assumes that the appearance of design must imply design, which is both anthropocentric and wrong

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126085634AAmdTKO

Any help *at all *would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless

 

[reggieM]

First of all, I don’t recommend that you read any pro-atheist websites because you will be taking in many errors which are presented as if they’re absolutely true.

Atheists contradict themselves all the time, but they tend to argue with a lot of anger and emotion so many people do not see the errors.

If you are a novice in the path of God, I suggest that you spend your precious hours reading pure and true material that teaches about God and about his glory. This is a topic which is so essential and so vast that you really will have no time to waste on atheist sites if you apply yourself.

If you love Jesus, why spend your time among people who hate him and want to prove that He doesn’t exist?

Please don’t forget that you have a fierce Enemy who wants you to lose your pearl of great price.

Faith is a gift – a treasure. You’ve been given that gift so you have to preserve it and make it grow – like the mustard seed.

Don’t expose it to poison. And atheist arguments are 90% poison. There is some small part that is true in what they say – that’s what Satan uses to hook people into unbelief. They end up swallowing all of the errors and embracing hatred of God (and claiming that life is meaningless).

If life has no meaning at all, then why are atheists making all of these arguments? They’re passionate about something that is meaningless and temporary. We would normally call this plain insanity. They’re trying to teach the “real meaning of the universe” while they assert that it has no real meaning.

Without God and heaven and hell, life is not moving in a direction to the future. Life will just end and be nothing. This violates everything in human experience and nature.

There could be no justice after death for the many crimes committed here.

 

[J_C]

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

I think you’ve answered your own question in the statement of yours that I quoted.

Have you been following the “I Am An Atheist” thread in this forum? If not, you should browse through it to get a feel for how some atheists really think about God. They claim to be neutral, and only demanding incontrovertible proof of God’s existence before they will believe in Him. In reality, though, they bear hatred for God.

 

[timotheos]

Careful. Think about it - I would imagine a true atheistic stance should include total indifference toward religious believers. Funny thing though, in my experience it seems atheists don’t like being alone in their lack of belief in God. They usually wish to destroy your belief, as their belief has been previously destroyed.

Why is it that they don’t seem to want to patiently convert you into an atheist out of love and concern?

Why is it that you never seem to run into a simple, humble, happy atheist? Why does the nature of atheism seem to be competitive, based on an elitist sense of intellectual superiority? Why is it that the most highly-regarded atheists seem cold, aloof and arrogant?

Again, think about it. In most cases, it is much more than a purely logical, intellectual and philosophical quest, as it is often disguised. As others have pointed out, it is about anger, hate, destruction.

• Tim

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I really need some help in dealing with these articles. They claims to refute many arguments for the existance of God and since I’m just a novice (not even) in my philosophical thinking, these articles really runs circles around my head.

religionislies.com/godnoevidence.html

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/pudding.htm

They’re rather long, but if anyone can answer only one or more of these arguments I’ll be very grateful. I feel at the moment a disgusting fear of possibly becoming an atheist as a result of these and other like arguments, and I can’t fathom the thought of life as meaningless and existance worthless…‘we’re all going to die anyway so why bother with love, life, compassion, truth, morality, equlity, happiness, education, freedom, power, finding a cure for such disease, contributing to society etc… it all ceases to exist at death so why care’ kind of feeling .

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

This was also posted as an answer to the question “Where can I find a formal refutation of Aquinas’ ‘Five proofs of God’, the ‘Quinquae viae’?”

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126085634AAmdTKO

Any help *at all *would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless

Look at a car. Imagine that someone told you that it naturally exists- no one made it that way. Can you believe them?

 

[Blinky]

Isn’t the quantum world and virtual particles really, really … tiny?

 

[St_Aloysius]

Look at a car. Imagine that someone told you that it naturally exists- no one made it that way. Can you believe them?

It wouldn’t be a wise move.

Theoretically, though, a car may appear fully constructed with a brand new paint job from within a vacuum at any given point in time. The odds for this tend to be quite low–into the realm of “not gonna happen.” Although we are dealing with a stream of pure energy here, and not absolute nothingness, as modern science and the Christian conviction typically hold the universe to have originated from.

 

[ribozyme]

Careful. Think about it - I would imagine a true atheistic stance should include total indifference toward religious believers. Funny thing though, in my experience it seems atheists don’t like being alone in their lack of belief in God. They usually wish to destroy your belief, as their belief has been previously destroyed.

Why is it that they don’t seem to want to patiently convert you into an atheist out of love and concern?

Why is it that you never seem to run into a simple, humble, happy atheist? Why does the nature of atheism seem to be competitive, based on an elitist sense of intellectual superiority? Why is it that the most highly-regarded atheists seem cold, aloof and arrogant?

Again, think about it. In most cases, it is much more than a purely logical, intellectual and philosophical quest, as it is often disguised. As others have pointed out, it is about anger, hate, destruction.

• Tim

Isn’t it possible that most atheists are “simple, humble, and happy?” I bet most atheists DO NOT spend their time on religious forums railing on theists. It seems you met atheists who are quite ostentatious about their atheism. Of course, those atheists are easier to notice so your experience is probably tarnished by observer bias.

I’ve decided that God as described in the Christian Bible doesn’t exist, and I want to help build a new world - a techno-utopia.

 

[J_C]

Isn’t it possible that most atheists are “simple, humble, and happy?” I bet most atheists DO NOT spend their time on religious forums railing on theists. It seems you met atheists who are quite ostentatious about their atheism. Of course, those atheists are easier to notice so your experience is probably tarnished by observer bias.

I’ve decided that God as described in the Christian Bible doesn’t exist, and I want to help build a new world - a techno-utopia.

Many things are “possible” including the existence of happy atheists who live their lives quietly without having the need to drag others into their happy worlds. I doubt that many true atheists are like this. Lots of people call themselves atheists but are actually just religiously indifferent, and there’s a distinction.

Personal opinion, I think of an atheist about the same as a cultist. Most of them believe they’re onto something major and are on a quest to sell that major idea to as many others as they can. They need company in order to validate their own choices. “build a new world - a techno-utopia” suggests one is on a mission, no?

 

[puzzleannie]

I They’re rather long, but if anyone can answer only one or more of these arguments I’ll be very grateful. I feel at the moment a disgusting fear of possibly becoming an atheist as a result of these and other like arguments,
. . .

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

so what you are really saying is that your current thought process and spiritual state have conditioned you to place more weight on the arguements of human beings, even those who post on unreliable unverifiable websites, persons unknown to you, yet you are willing to give them authority over your thoughts, your philosophy of life, your religion, your core beliefs, your values, your moral and ethical decisions, your identity.

Strange that you are very easy in your mind in letting anonymous websites control your thinking that two internet discussion could MAKE YOU become atheist.

and for these people you are even contemplating giving up your relationship with Jesus, a Person you are just beginning to know, and to deny Him all authority over you.

 

[ribozyme]

Personal opinion, I think of an atheist about the same as a cultist. Most of them believe they’re onto something major and are on a quest to sell that major idea to as many others as they can. They need company in order to validate their own choices. “build a new world - a techno-utopia” suggests one is on a mission, no?

I read David Pearce’s *The Hedonistic Imperative *and it describes a possible techno-utopia. I’ve also read Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near too and it promotes the same agenda. I do think humanity should actively strive towards those the goal of techno-utopia.

In my heart of hearts, I think Kurzweil’s belief in the singularity is a delusion; however, sometimes express a fervent belief in it. I suppose those are situations where my “religious” self trumps my rational self because I am mired in extreme despondency.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Isn’t it possible that most atheists are “simple, humble, and happy?” I bet most atheists DO NOT spend their time on religious forums railing on theists. It seems you met atheists who are quite ostentatious about their atheism. Of course, those atheists are easier to notice so your experience is probably tarnished by observer bias.

Maybe so. The other “simple, humble, and happy” atheists must be a really quiet bunch.

I’ve decided that God as described in the Christian Bible doesn’t exist, and I want to help build a new world - a techno-utopia.

That doesn’t exactly sound like “simple, humble, and happy,” now does it? But I guess this is a topic for another thread.

 

[ribozyme]

That doesn’t exactly sound like “simple, humble, and happy,” now does it? But I guess this is a topic for another thread.

I’ve never identified myself as “simple, humble, and happy.” My own beliefs are somewhat similar to “transhumanism.”

Maybe so. The other “simple, humble, and happy” atheists must be a really quiet bunch.

Yes, that was my hypothesis.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve never identified myself as “simple, humble, and happy.” My own beliefs are somewhat similar to “transhumanism.”

I had guessed as much from your desire to create a techno-utopia. I seem to remember you proposing genetic modification of human beings as well. Anyways, sorry to hear you’re not happy.

Yes, that was my hypothesis.

The problem is I do not find it very believable. You’d think happy and humble atheists might be upset that other people are making them look like such an angry bunch.

 

[cyberjacques]

I really need some help in dealing with these articles. They claims to refute many arguments for the existance of God and since I’m just a novice (not even) in my philosophical thinking, these articles really runs circles around my head.

religionislies.com/godnoevidence.html

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/pudding.htm

The mental gymnastics of these two articles is astonishing. In answering the questions pertaining to science, almost no actual science is cited. In answering the questions pertaining to philosophy and spirituality, vague circuitous opinions are offered as irrefutable facts. The authors clearly have no understanding of Christianity, and very little schooling in the hard sciences. It’s no accident that these articles make your head spin. That’s the whole point of stuff like this, to make you too dizzy to think straight. They try to twist perfectly rational ideas into tangled nonsense, so that when they offer you an irrational alternative, it seems simple and straightforward by comparison.

There are some atheists who will try to point to modern discoveries in quantum physics as proof that there is no God. When in reality, philosophical and scientific ideas about God that scientists long thought to be impossible are now being demonstrated in laboratories, things like bilocation (things being in multiple locations at the same time), quantum fluctuations (nothing being split into something and negative something) and nonlinear cause and effect (the cause occurring after the effect), just to name a few.

The more we learn about science, the more atheists have to juggle the evidence to disprove God. For many, it comes from a resentment at being told what to do. For others, it’s an overdeveloped sense of superiority, offended at the idea of being subject to a greater intelligence. For the rest, it’s the result of a fear in the possibility that they might be held accountable for their actions some day. Take Christopher Hitchens, for example. Even people who normally agree with his anti-God ravings have responded to his latest book with concerns for his sanity. He HATES the idea of God, and he’s desperate to disprove the idea, mostly to himself.

God is too big for us to ever truly prove His existence, since He exists independently of the reality He created. But He left His “fingerprints” all over the place. He wants us to find Him, He wants us to know Him. Why else would He have given us our capacity to make such discoveries?

“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” - 1 Corinthians 13:12

Don’t worry about it too much, my friend. You’ll learn more as you go along. And if you have a sincere desire to know Jesus, nobody can take that away from you.

God bless.

 

[Steadfast_love]

I really need some help in dealing with these articles. They claims to refute many arguments for the existance of God and since I’m just a novice (not even) in my philosophical thinking, these articles really runs circles around my head.

As an ex-atheist myself, let me save you some work here: Don’t panic!

Not to mention the horrific prospect of losing Jesus, whom I’ve recently began to fall so much in love with…that’s a fate infinitely worse than any unspeakable atrocity I can think of.

Again, don’t panic. As you go through life you’ll get attacked by people who hate love. I for example love Jesus, my wife and my kids. Guess what? People hate me for it. They hate that me and my wife are so happy. They hate that she satisfies me so much that I don’t have an eye for other women. They hate my 'lil babies too. They dress it up their hate with rationalizations: my kids *could *contract an expensive disease, my kids *could *suddenly stop being well behaved, my kids *could *make me tired… Seriously, there are sad broken people in this world who barf their bitterness on everyone and everything but it’s not personal so: Don’t panic!

Ok novice, let’s do a quick flyby. The rule we learned at the Council of Nicea is that every Herecy comes with a semitar to lop off its own head. It’s like in math. If you get a wrong number is it because
(A) THERE IS NO MEANING!!!
(B) Error begets error. Garbage in, garbage out.
Let’s take some examples…
1) The ‘Unmoved Mover’ fails at “everything that is moved is moved by a mover”. This is untrue in the quantum world at least, and even without this hole, there is no necessity for the Prime Mover to be supernatural. Here, SuperAtheist as he calls himself, has sidestepped the whole issue by sticking with buzzwords. Sure ‘motion’ isn’t airtight, it doesn’t deal with some phenomena but the power of the language Aquinas used is still useful in the quantum age. For example: when a freshly painted car pops into existence from a vacuum, it is a reduction from potentiality to actuality. His next point, that God doesn’t have to be supernatural, is a moot. This proof shows that God exists. It doesn’t say much else about him. “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

2) Ditto the ‘First Cause’ argument fails at “everything that is caused is caused by something else”, which is untrue in the quantum world, where uncaused events are commonplace. Again there is no requirement for a First Cause to be supernatural. Here SuperAtheist mistates the argument, since the point is that God is NOT caused by something else that’s why God is called the “first cause.” :duh:

3) Contingency fails at “something can’t come of nothing”, which applies only in the world of Classical Matter. Virtual particles don’t obey this, and the Big Bang may be a similar event. Both the ‘parallel universe’ and current M-Theory models don’t obey this. SuperAtheist plays a neat trick here. He conceeds that Aquinas is right in the natural world, but goes on to say that there could be a pre-natural, multi-natural or exo-natural cause. But let’s just call it what it is: a supernatural cause.

4) The ‘Degree Argument’ is particularly absurd: first, the notion of ‘perfection’ is anthropocentric; and even allowing this notion, ‘ultimate perfection’ is neither implied, nor assumed, nor required at all. SuperAtheist might be coherent on this point. If he’s ok with amorality, then there’s nothing we can do to force him into believing in better and worse. Here’s a tip: If you can beat a God-hater back into this position, just leave them there to rot. It’s impossible to dislodge someone from an existential crisis, but it’s also impossible for them to make any demands on you. They can’t for example say “It would be *better *to stop hitting me” because that’s anthropocentric.
(Seriously though, this is one of the saddest things about disbelieving God – disbelieving goodness.)

**5 The ‘Argument from Design’ has been comprehensively demolished elsewhere. It assumes that the appearance of design must imply design, which is both anthropocentric and wrong ** Tee hee hee! He believes in something he can’t demonstrate! Perhaps he’s taking it on faith?

On a more serious note. I’ve found that God-haters always(?) start by mangling some truth of the Faith before leaping to their malformed conclusion. The best defense is to know your Faith so you can spot the lies.

(Note: I’m using the term “God-haters” so as not to besmirch the good name of atheists.)

God Bless! Read my .sig!

 

[lkddav]

First of all, I don’t recommend that you read any pro-atheist websites because you will be taking in many errors which are presented as if they’re absolutely true.

First of all, I don’t recommend that you read any religious websites because you will be taking in many errors which are presented as if they’re absolutely true

Atheists contradict themselves all the time, but they tend to argue with a lot of anger and emotion so many people do not see the errors.

Theists contradict themselves all the time, but they tend to argue with a lot of anger and emotion so many people do not see the errors

If you are a novice in the path of God, I suggest that you spend your precious hours reading pure and true material that teaches about God and about his glory. This is a topic which is so essential and so vast that you really will have no time to waste on atheist sites if you apply yourself.

S V7. Notice how reggie here wants you to stay away from any material but the bible. If you keep your head buried in the sand your whole life you will know nothing but sand.

If you love Jesus, why spend your time among people who hate him and want to prove that He doesn’t exist?

I am an atheist, I don’t hate jesus. S V7, do your own research on jesus christ outside the bible.

Please don’t forget that you have a fierce Enemy who wants you to lose your pearl of great price.

S V7 has no fierce enemy. This is nonsense.

Faith is a gift – a treasure. You’ve been given that gift so you have to preserve it and make it grow – like the mustard seed.

Faith is not a gift or treasure. If you fill a bucket up with faith, all you have is a empty bucket.

“Faith is believing in something you know ain’t true” ---- MARK TWAIN

Don’t expose it to poison. And atheist arguments are 90% poison. There is some small part that is true in what they say – that’s what Satan uses to hook people into unbelief. They end up swallowing all of the errors and embracing hatred of God (and claiming that life is meaningless).

Yes S V7, reggie is telling you to keep your head buried in the book of fairy tales. By the way, I don’t claim that life is meaningless and know of no one that does.

If life has no meaning at all, then why are atheists making all of these arguments? They’re passionate about something that is meaningless and temporary. We would normally call this plain insanity. They’re trying to teach the “real meaning of the universe” while they assert that it has no real meaning.

Atheist don’t have a god belief. That’s it. Reggie, I assume by this post that you know every atheist in the world and know exactly what they think. This is babbling nonsense.

Without God and heaven and hell, life is not moving in a direction to the future. Life will just end and be nothing. This violates everything in human experience and nature.

All life ends. No one knows if anything is after that. Everything we know about science and nature suggests nothing happens.

Heaven and hell is just a “believe” from a 2000 year old book.

There could be no justice after death for the many crimes committed here.

What crimes are you talking about??

LKDDAV

 

[S_V7]

Yes S V7, reggie is telling you to keep your head buried in the book of fairy tales. By the way, I don’t claim that life is meaningless and know of no one that does.

Then what do you claim it is? Please respond

I do think humanity should actively strive towards those the goal of techno-utopia.

For what purpose? To better our lives? It won’t matter in the end after all…

I thought about the prospect of science finding the "cure for mortality " as someone might argue, but it only worsened the situation. Why would I want to live a meaningless life for eternity? Sounds more like hell to me.

Here are just some of my thoughts

I believe it was the first article I posted that claimed that if the Church said the existance of God could be proven through reason, it would have done so by now and since it hasn’t, God must not exist.

And I thougnt well, perhaps it has, just not to the atheist’s satisfaction.

The answer it gives to the contradiction is that goodness is dependent on God’s eternal nature which means that God is goodness and love. He is literally these abstract things. This is called rational but it is anything but. We cannot understand it. **And even if there were no God or anything it would still be true that it is wrong to murder. ** So what the authors of the Handbook are doing is condemning the idea of a God who invents morality and smuggling it back in the back door.

If we’re just like animals, why would it be wrong to murder? Animals kill animals and no one thinks much of it. Why should it be different with us as animals? Survivlal of the fittest right? If someone gets in the way of my advancement, why can’t I just kill them?

**

**Conscience is not a pain most of the time.**  We want it and we want others to have it.  Conscience can be wrong so it is not the voice of God.      Some argue that the protests of conscience come from nowhere it seems so God must be the source (page 62, Arguing with God).  They say that what I see around me does not tell me what is wrong but the voice inside my head does.  But the voice is created by memory so though it is true that what is around you has not told you it is true that what WAS around you has told you.  Conscience is just an intellectual activity like seeing a sum as wrong and as I said it is caused by the desire for happiness.

It most certainly is! I cannot count the number of times my conscience slapped my mentality and how many times i foolishly disregarded it. I can’t remember where I read this or who said this that pain and guilt were similar in that when you placed your hand on a stove, pain drove you to remove it. As is with a guilty conscience, it’s very uncomfortable (and at times painful and sickening) but it makes know that what I did was wrong and must not do it again.
And of course a misinformed conscience can be wrong, just look at the world and it’s twist on morality and it’s view on right and wrong. “It’s ok as long as you think it’s ok.” And so we drink the poison of relativism.

Conscience is just an intellectual activity like seeing a sum as wrong and as I said it is caused by the desire for happiness

.

Like I said, many people have misinformed consciences, which I believe can be credited to the influnce of the carnal world and its “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” philosophy. Again meaningless life unless there is God and an after life where we must give an account for our actions. Why bother doing the “right thing” when doing the opposite is more fun and therefore increases my “happiness”? Who gets to decide what’s right and wrong? Society, culture, us? More poisonous relativism

**

Miracles, changes in the law of nature such as a statue coming to life, are said to prove that God exists.
But it is more likely that the witnesses are lying or deceived than that such a change really happened because making mistakes and telling lies is commoner. So, it seems that a miracle may only be believed if it is irrefutable.
When a miracle is accepted as a true miracle it is only accepted because there is no evidence against it. But once you do that you have to believe all miracles and it is not that hard to create a fake but irrefutable one. One could be done to prove that there is a weak devil but not a God.
God cannot do miracles to prove his existence for then he would be stupid for it won’t work. He would be doing silly miracles if he does them so we would not know what to make of them and their implications. Moreover, when belief is not a free act God would not need to present miracles as evidence for religion.

I’m quite certain there are true miracles. Just look at Loudres, the stigmata, the Eucharistic miracles and all the research that has been done, particularly with the Eucharist miracle in Laciano Italy. Some claim that stigmatists did it for attention, but when I read this in Padre Pio’s letters to his spiritual director:

" I will lift up my voice and shout to Him and will not stop beseeching Him until, through his mercy, He withdraws from me not the pain - because I think that is impossible and I want to intoxicate myself with pain- but these external marks that are the cause of indescribable and unbearable confusion and humiliation"

Letter to Father Benedetto Oct. 22, 1918 from Secrets of a Soul pg. 14

Continued…

 

[S_V7]

I can’t help but laugh at the claims. There may be frauds out there but that does not exclude the real thing. And that whole ‘hyponosis’ and psycological deception thing…oh please

The facts having been set forth, it remains to state the explanations that have been offered. Some physiologists, both Catholics and Free-thinkers, have maintained that the wounds might be produced in a purely natural manner by the sole action of the imagination coupled with lively emotions. The person being keenly impressed by the sufferings of the Saviour and penetrated by a great love, this preoccupation acts on her or him physically, reproducing the wounds of Christ. This would in no wise diminish his or her merit in accepting the trial, but the immediate cause of the phenomena would not be supernatural.

We shall not attempt to solve this question. Physiological science does not appear to be far enough advanced to admit a definite solution, and the writer of this article adopts the intermediate position, which seems to him unassailable, that of showing that the arguments in favour of natural explanations are illusory. They are sometimes arbitrary hypotheses, being equivalent to mere assertions, sometimes arguments based exaggerated or misinterpreted facts. But if the progress of medical sciences and psycho-physiology should present serious objections, it must be remembered that neither religion or mysticism is dependent on the solution of these questions, and that in processes of canonization stigmata do not count as incontestable miracles.

No one has ever claimed that imagination could produce wounds in a normal subject; it is true that this faculty can act slightly on the body, as Benedict XIV said, it may accelerate or retard the nerve-currents, but there is no instance of its action on the tissues (De canoniz., III, xxxiii, n. 31). But with regard to persons in an abnormal condition, such as ecstasy or hypnosis, the question is more difficult; and, despite numerous attempts, hypnotism has not produced very clear results. At most, and in exceedingly rare cases, it has induced exudations or a sweat more or less coloured, but this is a very imperfect imitation. Moreover, no explanation has been offered of three circumstances presented by the stigmata of the saints:

Physicians do not succeed in curing these wounds with remedies.
On the other hand, unlike natural wounds of a certain duration, those of stigmatics do not give forth a fetid odour. To this there is known but one exception: St. Rita of Cassia had received on her brow a supernatural wound produced by a thorn detached from the crown of the crucifix. Though this emitted an unbearable odour, there was never any suppuration or morbid alteration of the tissues.
Sometimes these wounds give forth perfumes, for example those of Juana of the Cross, Franciscan prioress of Toledo, and Bl. Lucy of Narni.
To sum up, there is only one means of proving scientifically that the imagination, that is auto-suggestion, may produce stigmata: instead of hypothesis, analogous facts in the natural order must be produced, namely wounds produced apart from a religious idea. This had not been done.

With regard to the flow of blood it has been objected that there have been bloody sweats, but Dr. Lefebvre, professor of medicine at Louvain, has replied that such cases as have been examined by physicians were not due to a moral cause, but to a specific malady. Moreover, it has often been proved by the microscope that the red liquid which oozes forth is not blood; its colour is due to a particular substance, and it does not proceed from a wound, but is due, like sweat, to a dilatation of the pores of the skin. But it may be objected that we unduly minimize the power of the imagination, since, joined to an emotion, it can produce sweat; and as the mere idea of having an acid bon-bon in the mouth produces abundant saliva, so, too, the nerves acted upon by the imagination might produce the emission of a liquid and this liquid might be blood. The answer is that in the instances mentioned there are glands (sudoriparous and salivary) which in the normal state emit a special liquid, and it is easy to understand that the imagination may bring about this secretion; but the nerves adjacent to the skin do not terminate in a gland emitting blood, and without such an organ they are powerless to produce the effects in question. What has been said of the stigmatic wounds applies also to the sufferings. There is not a single experimental proof that imagination could produce them, especially in violent forms.

Another explanation of these phenomena is that the patients produce the wounds either fraudulently or during attacks of somnambulism, unconsciously. But physicians have always taken measures to avoid these sources of error, proceeding with great strictness, particularly in modern times. Sometimes the patient has been watched night and day, sometimes the limbs have been enveloped in sealed bandages. Mr. Pierre Janet placed on one foot of a stigmatic a copper shoe with a window in it through which the development of the wound might be watched, while it was impossible for anyone to touch it (op. cit. supra).

newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm

And while on the subject of Saints, I’ll rant some more.

Continued…

 

[S_V7]

I’m in the process of reading The Diary of Saint Faustina and am just blown away by what I read. Some passages are so beautiful I want to cry. Not to mention the thousands of other saints out there. Last summer I checked out a dense book on the lives of saints and it was like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Absolutley NOTHING I see in this world can compare to the beauty of the spiritual life of these people and their immense love for God. Reading their biographies and accounts really opened my eyes. I no longer ask myself about suffering and why there’s evil in the world and such. It’s the “logical” and philosophical arguments that are creating a problem since I know next to nothing about philosophy.

Then there are those early Christian martyrs…Why face a brutel and perhaps merciless torture and death for a fairy tale? Just denounce your God and your free to go, right? Why die when a simple “no I don’t believe” will save your life?

Reminds me of that girl (Cassie Bernall I think was her name) from the Columbie shooting who died after replying “yes” to the question asked by the gunmen ‘Do you believe in God’ while a gun was held at her head. I’ve read a sort of memoir/ biography about her ( She Said Yes, I believe was the name) and she was once involved with some satanic friends and threatning to kill herself or runaway and such. Her “yes” happened after a complete U turn in her life. If I remeber correctly (I don’t have the book with me now) the first page has her picture and a quote from a letter written to her friend the day before she was shot that says : “P.S Honestly, I want to live completely for God. It’s hard and scary but totally worth it.”

sorry, I didn’t mean this post to be so long, but I just had to rant a bit:blush:

I also apologize if I come off hotheaded, that wasn’t my intention.

thank you for the responses, they have given me food for thought.
please continue!