May I quote this email (anonymously of course) on a forum (likely at catholic.com) along with my reply, so I can have my reply proofread? I care very much about what you’ve said, and I don’t want to say something incorrect. (I don’t particularly enjoy Christian apologetics because I’m a student – I’m seeing myself in a situation of trying to “teach” something I’ve only just read.)
The following is my original letter, followed by his reply, and I’m wondering if my reply to him (the last quotation in this series of posts – I think it’s the fourth post here) is good. What do you think?yeah, sure. You don’t have to make it anonymous if you don’t want to.
Some background: I wrote this letter initially to a friend who, last I heard, supported abortion. After writing a bit more, I felt the ideas here were important enough to warrant further discussion – that is, more significant than just “a thought in passing”, since these issues affect the lives of millions every day. So I blind carbon copied it to a few more whom I thought would be interested.
The original email was a forward of an attachment of a Powerpoint file of Holocaust photographs, along with the dubious claim that the UK had removed the Holocaust from its education curriculum. Just a little awkward.
Code:I'm not sending this email to upset you, but rather because I do not know currently where you stand. I'm assuming you already know this, but, in the rare event that you didn't -- D'you know there have been more than forty-five million unborn babies murdered in the US since 1973, more than two billion murdered worldwide? It's a tragedy that we certainly say no to the Holocaust (especially when presented with emails like these!) but then allow one to occur -- many, in fact, supporting it -- in our own country.
I spoke with a woman with extremely strong faith after Mass today. We spoke for what felt like an hour, with many thought-provoking ideas. (A few examples: she believes we always have a guardian angel assigned to be at our side; that Jesus will return soon, once every nation has turned against Israel; that 80% of the prophecies of the end of times have been fulfilled.) One thing she said was the Protestant idea of the Antichrist being a person was incorrect – that rather, it is a movement of things against Christ, a spirit that is antiChrist. This spirit, she claims, has already spread across the world.
In my own experience here in the United States, it is certainly the case – take, for example, science and the philosophies of moral relativism and subjective truth that have come to accompany it. Science once was the study of how God set the natural world into being, “studying the clock and glimpsing the clockmaker”… now, it is preferable to refer to the clock as the clockmaker. Two brief examples: in my Astrophysics textbook the authors often say things like, “Nature has provided us a way to study the interior of stars.” My Quantum Mechanics textbook author describes reality in terms of our theories – “Two objects fall at the same rate because their masses cancel from both sides of the equation.” Notice the usage of the word ‘because’ – the subtle implication is that this happens not because God says so, but because we say so. Perhaps the author felt that was less awkward than saying the purely scientific equivalent, “Two objects fall at the same rate and mathematically our theory is in agreement with this observation,” but I think there is a significant difference between these two statements.
In short, those who submerse themselves in science, and societies which are upholding science as the end all be all of human progress, are increasingly falling into this trap of the antiChrist of setting themselves diametrically opposed to God – and not because God exists or doesn’t exist, but because they think that “science says so.” It seems to me that our situation has already been addressed, by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans, 1.19-23:
“For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man …”
And who could forget everyone’s favorite, Ecclesiastes, 1.9: “What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun.”
Whenever I think about this issue, I am always reminded of the following statement, because I still have not seen evidence to the contrary: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).
This is all very nice, but it still is fundamentally all the same old argument. What every person who believes in anything at all should constantly do is take an objective look at what it is they believe in, and ask themselves why it is that they hold so much stock in that thing. Your strategy in the entire debate concerning God or issues that God supposedly doesn’t agree with, as it is with all Christians, is to go back to the Bible and say “well, here is where some guy 2000 years ago, from an ancient civilization wrote about THIS, so I think I’ve supported my point to a degree that should be satisfying in our modern and advanced civilization!” This form of a defense would not work in any field, in any serious argument, on any topic at all. Why does it suffice in religious arguments? Because religious arguments are so weak and hold so little factual evidence that they have no other legs to stand on. The Bible, an ancient document that has repeatedly been proven to be nothing more than a collection of fables and myths and very little historical accuracy, is taken as the ultimate authority on all things. This is where the fallacy begins…
You can quote your favorite excerpts from the Bible until you’re blue in the face, but what does it prove? You are assuming authority from people who have none. Look at this objectively. Why is it that you place so much stock in what the Bible says, and hold it to be the ultimate truth? What scientifically sound scrutiny have you or others put the Bible through that makes it a sensible thing to so strongly believe in? There is a reason so many scientists are atheists/agnostics, and why so many religious people who go into science also start to tread down this path. It’s not because science is evil and makes you stray away from God. Science, Daniel, IS the truth, or the greatest truth that we are able to know. When a truly curious mind that wants to learn about the world around him or her is fed fables and myths from some ancient book, does this seem fitting? Does this seem like something that might satiate one’s desire for knowledge and understanding? Or perhaps would the combined knowledge of hundreds of years of scientific insight and progress and established, verified accuracy and descriptions of the very essence of nature provide more satisfying knowledge? The ability that one develops in critical thinking while studying science is highly applicable in all walks of life - not only in the laboratory or in theoretical problems. This is why it is constantly applied to a field where there seems to be none: religion. When one thinks critically and seriously about it, from a scientific standpoint requiring evidence, logic, and reason, one cannot help but find religion’s parables and accounts to be of little relevance.
In religion, everything is stagnant. The things they believed 2000 years ago with limited resources, laughable technology, small contact with far off lands, negligible scientific progress, and an all around lower intellectual environment are the SAME things they believe NOW, 2000 years later, after things have changed and we have seen the world in an entirely new way. The reason science is to be taken so seriously and held as highly as it is is because science DOES change as our knowledge and civilization and progress changes. When the physical reality of our world is found to not agree with the most minute and perplexing details of a theory because we have finally been able to develop the means to probe that deeply into it, that theory is no longer valid. People of great brilliance then go forth to strengthen the theory and show us and tell us WHY it does not work, and to fix it to make it more accurately describe nature. This does not happen with religion. Ancient, conservative, fundamental interpretations that were made in the absolute absence of scientific thought eons ago are taken today to be just as valid by the religious, in an age where science rules and where science is the thing we owe our luxurious existences to. As a student of science, I would hope that you could look scientifically at the Bible and see how, despite what it might say in Romans, or any other excerpt TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF, the Bible does NOT agree with truth, and what is found to be consistent with science. The Bible is ancient, and it does not contain eternal wisdom, truth, and knowledge. It is written by man, for man, thousands of years ago. Its messages conflict greatly with what we know to be true of the world, and it is times like these when the religious should really start to question the BOOK, not the way the world is. It is time for them to look at what it is the book is saying, look at how it is that nature behaves, and then question why. That is called critical thinking, and it appears to be a trait that is not strong with religious people.
If I have not illustrated well enough my problem with your stream of thinking then let me try with an analogy.
Those who deny that quantum loop gravity is the next big breakthrough for physics are just old-fashioned, close minded scientists who want to stop progress wherever they can. This is beyond question, since this very topic has been addressed by this famous author of this book on his own work in quantum loop gravity, where he says “quantum loop gravity is the truth, and that much must always be known. Even though we see no physically testable evidence for this theory, and we likely never will, we know that it is right and it is the answer to all of our questions in physics. He who does not see this as the absolute truth is just choosing to be blind to what we know, deep down, is truly out there.”
(Continued on the next post.)
Now, what do you think of my reply to him?Does this seem like sound reasoning? You’re essentially using a quote, from the very book you’re trying to defend, as a means to defend it. This is a major problem with Bible arguments! It’s all circular. “You can’t say that the Bible is not true, because the Bible has THIS to say about that!” There is no outside source, no other affirming text or literature that confirms what it is the Bible says. The Bible is the only book that says this! Taking this source as the absolute truth, not to be questioned or doubted, is such a monumental failure of logic and reasoning and thinking that I don’t even want to address it further.
I’ve written this reply piecemeal after reading each paragraph or section. I hope it is not too much to read – are you a fast reader? (I got the impression you may very well read more than I, so I wonder.)
- If I use the Bible to support an argument as you claim, it is unintentional: I mean to mention the Bible as additional evidence, not the only evidence. When I argue religion, I tend to simply say what makes sense to me – like the argument, “A major form of energy loss in Type Ia supernovae is neutrino emission.” Presented with that argument, I ask myself, ‘Have I ever seen that?’ Hell no! But it makes sense, based on what I’ve learned from Astrophysics, so I say, “Sure, that makes sense to me. I’ll buy that.”
- You are establishing a false dichotomy between religion and science. I feel awkward writing this because, although you’ve apparently been Catholic longer than I, I have no idea what you know or remember learning. Two points I would like to make:
First of all, you should not misrepresent the Bible and then try to use this misrepresented image to try to undermine Christianity – that is a bad straw man argument. (Point zero in this discussion is that the Bible is not “infallible” – see catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp.) Catholicism, as I suppose you are aware, acknowledges when stories in the Bible are fictional. Undoubtedly, this will be a major, major obstacle for many Protestants who uphold “The Bible” (or rather, their interpretation of it) to be inerrant fact, and I fear for them and feel I should pray for them, because when they hold such foolish beliefs, how harder they may fall… I was fine with acknowledging that Jonah was a fictional prophet. I didn’t have much difficulty in accepting that the historical books in the Old Testament were written to teach spiritual truth about the Israelites’ relationship with God, rather than teach historical truth. Recently I asked Mary (I forget her last name), who I believe is head of the religious education program at St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church: “A major point of the Exodus story is God’s desire to drive the point home that he’s God, Head Honcho Supreme. He ‘hardens Pharoah’s heart’ and inflicts all these plagues so that this message will resound through the ages. What evidence do we have of that today? Is this story still well-known in Egypt? What’s the deal?”
Her reply was that it appears the story has been largely exaggerated – at least, the exodus was nowhere nearly as large as 600000 people. She might have gone so far as to say that there’s not a record of these events as they’re recorded in the Book of Exodus. (Yet archeology has found caves with Israelite prayers etched on their walls, indicating there were Israelite slaves there, who were freed at some point.) She said that the “actual” history, as we would think of history, wasn’t that important – rather, it was the message of the history of salvation as it concerned the Israelites; it was the spiritual message of “salvation history” that mattered, not whether it was 6000 or 600000, a dried creek or towering walls of water – the New American Bible at usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/intro.htm has footnotes concerning the miracle, suggesting some of the miracles could be an exaggeration of naturally-occurring events (pestilence, silt in the water, the Reed Sea, etc). It was these footnotes that sparked the question.
(Continued on the next post.)I was not expecting to hear this response – and it was discouraging at the time – and I’m not sure I’m remembering everything correctly, because I was so taken aback, and I’ll have to think more on this point. Even so, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this much is true. The assumption that the Bible is meant to teach us scientific truth is unfounded; so those Christians who pass out those “Science versus the Bible” pamphlets appear ridiculous. The assumption that the Bible is meant to teach us historical truth – excluding the ministry of Jesus – is likewise unfounded; so those Christians who pass out those “The Earth is 6000 years old” pamphlets appear ridiculous.
To my knowledge, the Church only professes the New Testament to be historically accurate as it relates to the ministry of Jesus (see vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PR.HTM)), as it is simply a collection of letters and apostolic teaching, as well as whatever of the Old Testament can be archaeologically verified. When they say the Bible is divinely inspired, it’s not to teach science or history, but salvation. Let me quote from my own Bible:
“Christians make a fantastic claim about the Bible: God is the author of the sacred Scriptures. They believe the Bible is God’s word, containing the truths that God wishes to reveal to humankind for our salvation. Through the Holy Spirit, God inspired the human authors of the Bible’s books to reveal these truths in their writings. These two concepts – God’s inspiration of the biblical authors and God’s revelation in their writings of the truths about God and God’s will for us – are two important Christian beliefs about the Bible.
To say that biblical authors were inspired by God does not mean that they took dictation directly from God. They were true authors using creative literary forms to communicate the people’s experience of God. In fact, many of the books had more than one author. Some books went through several decades of development in which the stories were told and retold, written down, combined, and edited. The church believes the Holy Spirit was guiding the many people involved throughout this whole process.”
Aesop’s Fables are meant to teach us about the nature of ourselves; it does not matter that they are fictional. Likewise, the fictional parts of the Bible are meant to teach us about the nature of God (and ourselves); it does not matter that they are fictional.
Secondly, you seem to have said that because the Bible is not scientific (i.e. supernatural), it is not worth reading – that is, if it can’t be measured, then it can’t be known, and if there’s truth in something that can’t be measured, it’s not truth worth knowing. I’m not sure where you came up with these ideas, but I disagree with them. I find Catholicism highly satisfying: Physics explains how; Christianity explains why. Without God, life is enjoyably empty and miserably meaningless.
- You have forgotten the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and you are confusing stagnation with truth; truth does not change. Rocks fall now as rocks fell then because gravity is an empirical fact. Abortion is wrong now as infanticide was wrong then because murder is morally wrong – condemned by a God that is unchanging, this morality is a spiritual “fact”. (I don’t know the right word for it now; I’m still learning.) I’m not entirely sure why you’re saying that a lack of change is bad … Do you throw away pens because they haven’t run out of ink? The Church’s teachings on faith and morals have (allegedly) not changed because there is no NEED for them to change – that is, because they are already true. That scientific theories are constantly changing are a sign that they are not yet true. I think this is one reason they say that faith is above reason – because divinely revealed truth is far more powerful than any theory we can scrape out of the earth.
(Note: I wrote this next paragraph before I read the rest of your point.) This statement greatly bothers me: “[The Bible’s] messages conflict greatly with what we know to be true of the world.” You make me wonder if we live on the same planet. Again, with the understanding that the Bible teaches us about our salvation, NOT about science, can you give me a single example? I cannot think of a single example of what you’re mentioning. The problem instead seems to be that Christian theology is non-falsifiable, although this is not a problem but rather a discomfort. My problem is that Christian theology is difficult because prayer is not always answered in the manner we expect. We pray for world peace, individuals pray for employment, yet war continues and individuals remain unemployed. It is the problem of suffering, and there are several books about it that I’ve yet to read. (On my reading list, for example, is The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.)
I want the both of us to see the truth. For this reason I care greatly that my response is accurate – I feel he doesn’t understand the Catholic faith, why we believe what we believe. Have I said anything in error?
- You are arguing that truth is being assumed because some men wrote some books. I am assuming truth – that is, I am following the Catholic Church – under the following premises. Please bear with me, because these statements are either true, highly arrogant, or sadly mistaken: i) God is real. ii) Jesus is real, and the “Hypostatic Union” is real, so Jesus is God. iii) Jesus established the Catholic Church, and with his promises, iv) the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ as its head. That is, I am assuming this truth not because some man wrote it, but because GOD wrote it. This is faith. Logically there is no way of knowing it is true (although there exist arguments that “God’s existence makes sense” and, in fact, that there are more theists than atheists itself suggests one). Indeed, the only possible way of knowing it to be true is by divine revelation. As I said, believing is a choice. I’ve chosen to assume these things because, until Christian doctrine produces a contradiction or something evil, I have nothing to lose. If I die and there is no afterlife and no God, I have lost nothing. I believe I have nothing to lose – and the point must be made – because I have not seen a single Christian doctrine that hurts anyone, and every Christian doctrine I have seen helps improve quality of life.