"Required to believe". An odd concept?

[TarkanAttila]

I enjoy writing about this stuff. If my posts help one or two people sort out their own thoughts on the subject, then all the better.

I hope you don’t mind if your arguments root them all the stronger in their faith.

I was thinking more like showing them a picture from when their parents were dating or when their parents were little kids. Show them that there was a time when they didn’t exist.

It’s the concept of “not existing” that’s the stumbling block for a lot of people, so the first thing you have to do is to establish that at one time, every person did “not exist.” Not existing is nothing to be afraid of.

**It’s kind of odd logic, but I don’t think you could actually do that. Recall that we all start off as a sperm and an egg, right? You would have to go back to when your parents were just two sperms and two eggs. And even then, their genetic material which would then become their child’s genetic material still exists. You would have to go back to before the existence of matter itself to express the idea that “at one point you didn’t exist”. Because you do, now. And you came from everything preceding from that, even as far back as the Big Bang. You didn’t have to exist, but you do.

I find the question of our origin to be, in light of that last sentence, therefore rather unimportant. You’re here now. It doesn’t matter where you came from. It matters what you do from there.**

I submit that even those who don’t believe in a god who “sees” and “judges” all have good reasons to lead what is typically referred to as a “good life.”
**
I do believe it might just be because you were born into a Christian society which holds these values dear. Strong atheism is only the belief that there is no god nor gods. There’s no moral or ethical background to go with it. If atheism overcomes civilization, I believe that “civilization” will not last for long. Starts with small things like pushing and shoving to get onto the bus. People get bolder and more self-centered when they don’t have a reason not to be. It’s how we act as humans. Or haven’t you ever tried to do something your parents told you not to when they’re not looking? **

Honestly, I find the idea that we will always exist to be a thought that very much devalues this life. What’s the point in telling the people you care about how much you care about them if you’re going to have forever to do it some day? What’s the point of enjoying all that life has to offer if you sincerely believe – based on no evidence whatsoever – that you have an eternity of unimaginably great experiences waiting for you after death?

What’s the value of a life that’s just a prelude for something “better” that you imagine is going to happen to you?

**You may not. That’s up to God. And it’s up to YOU as a human to make things work out here on Earth if you want to be getting to that great place up there. That’s a basic, pre-conventional thought process every human goes through - that if I do something for someone else, I can get something back in return. Anyone who thinks they can just waltz into Heaven after unrepentantly ignoring what the God who owns Heaven asked you to do - well - needs a lot of prayers. Let’s put it that way. We sacrifice down here on Earth and do what’s right to do now so that we CAN have those fantastic adventures later on!

Even then, eventually to grow as a human you have to see the big picture. Charity, love, and selflessness are not actions of the selfish man who wants Heaven. They’re the work of a man who - at very least - loves God (or something else) and want to please them. And those things are also the products of Christianity far more than they are of atheism, in my experience. Charity does NOT begin by saying “What I** want is what’s right”, and many atheists and anti-Christians hold that philosophy.

I can tell you that accepting the reality that there probably isn’t some “other life” is something that makes every single experience in this life – the only life – feel a heck of a lot more precious.

**Then go and “make the most of it” instead of putzing about her all day! Surely you can find something “better” to do than jabber with a bunch of Catholics. Like find a girlfriend, or learn how to run an Amiga, or go bungee-jumping. Yeah. Bungee-jumping off of an airplane.
**
What was that about tone?

I think 4Horsemen was being sincere about that. Couldn’t blame her if she was.

 

[Tenofovir]

The chief difference with religion is that, unlike other fields, there’s no actual evidence that these “experts” are dealing with.

I’ll bite. Well what about philosophy then? What about the arts? What about ‘common sense’? What about culture? Tradition? What about patriotism? What about loyalty? Love? Devotion? Politics? Economics – how many economists predicted these different economic crashes we had over the years?

Would you consider most Hollywood produced films art or garbage?

In every other field or endeavor, there’s a pretty well-established sense of who’s right because…well, the evidence is there to see. If someone puts out cookbooks with really awful dishes, then it won’t take long for that book to be at the bottom of the recommended list that all professional chefs compile.

Cookbooks? Well my friend I love picked herring and most English people I know despise it. I know many westerners hate most types of Japanese furikake and natto. Nutritional value? It seems that some fish oils lead to colon cancer, oh but they help for coronary artery disease.

If someone proposes a whacked out scientific theory, it’s not going to get published in the journal that actual scientists, with actual evidence, get published in.

Theories are published in journals all the time. There may not even be compelling evidence for them. Epidemiology for example. Scientists find a particular trend, they publish it, of course they don’t draw fixed conclusions, but they often speculate.
Many whacked out theories are published, they just have to correlate with data or even encompass most data in some way and they’re fit for publication. Not every science is an empirical hard science like physics. Sociology, psychology, philosophy, psychiatry etc often don’t follow hard empirical data but collect statistical evidence from numerous studies which often contradict each other. Teaching often changes. The guy who said bacteria cause stomach ulcers was laughed out by the leading scientists of his day.

Only in religion can people make claims that can’t be independently investigated and evaluated – simply because, in most cases, you have to accept their claims (or “open your heart” to these claims) in order to even begin investigating it.

I think you’re confusing belief in God with oral tradition and early written scriptures. For belief in God there is no empirical scientific evidence, for authenticity of the gospels all scholars agree that they are authentic and were written before the end of the 1st Century AD. If you believe that the apostles of Christ were not deceivers, were not deluded or were not deceived; faith in Christ becomes 100% based on reason. Of course there is a choice. If God could be proved with a telescope pointed into a black hole then what free choice would we have to believe or not? We’d be compelled to believe - He would be like a policeman standing over us. What of free will then, if choice is coerced or compelled by circumstance or a physically visible God?

In mathematics you have to accept some rules before you can be a mathematician. For example you need to know the difference between addition and subtraction. These are arranged by convention and of course so is religion. In Christianity the Catholic Church arranged the theology - scriptures, tradition, teachings and so if you want to be a Catholic you have (try) to follow these teachings as best as you can. That’s why you have to ‘believe’ - but you don’t really have to believe in many of these things. You just need to accept them. You don’t have to believe that abortion is wrong, just accept that it is. The only belief is belief in God because we don’t have a video of Christ after His Resurrection. The teachings of the Church flow logically from Scripture and tradition of the early Church. There is no voodoo here. No fudging of facts. Life is sacred because it comes from God, a god who died for us. Human dignity is sacred. Hence abortion or killing of a new individual human being is WRONG. Simple. What other way is there to interpret these teachings?

Also there are many claims which can be verified independently and even scientifically. For example - loving your neigbour - if everyone really LOVED (i.e. really cared about others without asking for anything in return) don’t you think we’d have a better place right here on earth? People who do works of charity - you’ll find that they’re usually very satisfied in their lives - they’re usually very happy.

Religion is the only field in which there really are no agreed-upon correct answers because it’s not a field – it’s a bunch of people investigating the contents of their imaginations and their oh-so-precious feelings

Oh come on. In Catholic religion there are agreed upon answers for the most part, as there are in most other faiths. There are always things which go with being a member of a religion like being an American citizen (I am not one) requires you to pay income tax and defend your country if need be, or if you’re a pacifist at least not betray your country.
And it’s not following ‘oh-so-precious feelings’ which is more to do with secular ultra-liberal views but more with following things which Christ actually said.

Of course people may disagree about God, people may reject Christ, that’s up to them. You can reject the Pope and still be Christian, you can reject Christ and be agnostic or atheist or pick up another faith. However, if you want to call yourself Catholic, you should follow certain teachings over and above belief in God, in the same way that a person who wants to call himself a physician has to abide by the rules of his medical board.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by AntiTheist
The chief difference with religion is that, unlike other fields, there’s no actual evidence that these “experts” are dealing with.

The evidence “is” with Jesus Christ and his Disciples, God and the Blessed Mother whom he sent Angels to and greeted Mary “Hail Mary” thus the Holy Family. The Holy Bible. The number One selling book in the history of the World. And remains so Yearly. So its still New, News.

The BIble which at every turn is playing out to be Archaelogically and Geographically correct, like with Sodom and Gomorah from Genisis, Exodus, etc etc.

And to add the reality of 85% accuracy of the “yearly” exorcisms performed by the church confirmed by PHDs who witness the events. Many of whom then immeditaly chose to leave their profession due to the reality they encountered, which they didn’t believe.

Then we have “PUBLIC” apparitions of Our Lady witnessed by Hundreds of Thousands, with confirmed miracles from God.

And then after all this, we have your concepts, theorys and philosphy and laws, physics, mathmatics etc. All wondeful fields, but non the less mans interest and work.

None of which explain out existance in the Universe? Do you have a theory of that. thats proven? Proven now, like the evidence I just gave you about the battle you in, and don’t realize.

The “fact” that unfolds before us daily is the battle of Good and Evil. Why not join us in this battle?

In fact if we were able to have the world do this I suggest we all might come to realize a very different existance. And if “you” gave this on honest effort over a say a FIVE YEAR period of time. I assure you, you will understand exactly what our claim is here.

And “if” after this honest effort you decide this isn’t for you. Which I’m convinced won’t happen. Your misery will be refunded in Full. In which case you lost nothing but what an hour a day for 5-years? A drop in the bucket of time. So little is asked and so much is given. To pay reverence to the Author of LIfe. Instead of you employer, spouse, mayor, president, and all these other mere mortals who have no control over your SOUL.

But Oh what you might gain, eternal life in Heaven. Did you hear that? Let me repeat…Eternal LIfe in Heaven!

Theres no other solution, all other paths led anywhere but Heaven and almost all to Lucifer.

What I believe is our better thinking is often that which won’t allow us to accept this path. Image, facade, pride, ignorance, greed etc.

Is that not your Pride that bought you the CATHOLIC Forum to proclaim your atheism? That God, Jesus Christ. Mary, the Saints, Angels, Holy Family, Apostles, Disciples, Pope and 2-Thousand years worth of scholars, and then Catholic Church, aside from the daily reality of Lucifer. And all here who proclaim Gods KIngdom. Then satan who is now plastered all over televison in every Paranormal show in existence. Yet all this is in “your” infinate wisdom is “wrong”?

How about this theory, just a theory now, maybe. just maybe, Your Wrong. And Lucifer is doing a great job deceiving you because he definatly is awaiting your soul.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’ll bite. Well what about philosophy then? What about the arts? What about ‘common sense’? What about culture? Tradition? What about patriotism? What about loyalty? Love? Devotion? Politics? Economics – how many economists predicted these different economic crashes we had over the years?

Would you consider most Hollywood produced films art or garbage?

I’m not following you. Most of those things you’ve listed aren’t fields of study at all – they’re abstract concepts. Other things you’ve listed aren’t fields of study about the world around us – they’re fields that study subjective taste (like art criticism).

But for those things that you’ve listed that are fields of study about the world around us, every last one of them bases their work on evidence that anyone can explore. Now certainly, there can be some debate about the evidence (for example, there were indeed some economists who were long saying that deregulating businesses and giving tax cuts to the richest Americans were practices that were going to destroy the economy…others took that same evidence and argued differently…but they were all using evidence). And certainly, people aren’t perfect, so sometimes that evidence in ineptly applied, but it’s a completely different horse than religion and “spirituality.”

I have no idea what relevance the poor quality of most motion pictures these days is.

Cookbooks? Well my friend I love picked herring and most English people I know despise it. I know many westerners hate most types of Japanese furikake and natto. Nutritional value? It seems that some fish oils lead to colon cancer, oh but they help for coronary artery disease.

Obviously, there are different tastes and preferences. I might not like Mexican food, for example, but I’m capable of distinguishing between well-made Mexican food (that I could see some people liking) and horrid Mexican food. In the example I gave, I was talking about a hypothetical cookbook in which every dish tasted like excrement.

Theories are published in journals all the time. There may not even be compelling evidence for them. Epidemiology for example. Scientists find a particular trend, they publish it, of course they don’t draw fixed conclusions, but they often speculate.

Well, you’ve just said yourself that scientists don’t draw fixed conclusions when the data isn’t sufficient. When scientists speculate, they make it clear that that’s what they’re doing.

Compare this to religious people, who, on the basis of far sketchier “evidence” (like, daydreams and warm and fuzzy feelings), pronounce vast extraordinary claims as fact.

For belief in God there is no empirical scientific evidence, for authenticity of the gospels all scholars agree that they are authentic and were written before the end of the 1st Century AD.

In the first place, the gospels aren’t evidence of “god” per se – they would be, at most, evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ and (if you really want to push it) claims about his miracles.

But they’re not even that. Scholars also agree that the gospels are anonymous, written down from the oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure decades (at the earliest) after the supposed death of this figure. I submit that anonymous, non-eyewitness accounts composed by cult members are not sufficient evidence to accept that supernatural events happened.

There are people alive today on the earth who claim to have been abducted by UFOs – some of them in groups! You can go get their firsthand, eye-witness report right now, but you’d be nuts if you believed them.

If firsthand eyewitness reports cannot confirm something extraordinary, like UFOs, then fourth- or fifth-hand stories passed down through a cult cannot confirm something extraordinary at all.

If you believe that the apostles of Christ were not deceivers, were not deluded or were not deceived; faith in Christ becomes 100% based on reason.

Rationally, based on everything you know of history, which is more likely: that a bunch of people were mistaken or that a guy rose from the dead?

And don’t give me that “But the apostles were all martyred!” stuff. There’s no evidence outside of church tradition for these claims, and even if there were, it only demonstrates how committed they were to their publicly expressed beliefs; it would tell us nothing about the truth of their supernatural claims.

 

[AntiTheist]

That’s why you have to ‘believe’ - but you don’t really have to believe in many of these things. You just need to accept them. You don’t have to believe that abortion is wrong, just accept that it is.

I fail to see the difference between believing something and accepting it.

When I believe, on the basis of evidence, that my coffee maker produces coffee, that means that I am accepting the claim “My coffee maker produces coffee.”

You appear to be using terminology in wildly new ways.

Also there are many claims which can be verified independently and even scientifically. For example - loving your neigbour - if everyone really LOVED (i.e. really cared about others without asking for anything in return) don’t you think we’d have a better place right here on earth? People who do works of charity - you’ll find that they’re usually very satisfied in their lives - they’re usually very happy.

I have no quarrel with the claim that loving people is generally a good thing and that charitable people are happy. My argument in this thread has nothing to do with the values espoused by your religion, many of which I like and many of which I don’t. My argument has everything to do with supernatural claims and whether there is sufficient evidence to accept them.

Oh come on. In Catholic religion there are agreed upon answers for the most part, as there are in most other faiths.

But all of the different religions disagree with each other. By their own claims, religions are mutually exclusive, and this produces a huge problem for anyone claiming that religion is an actual field.

Do I have to spell it out? If you don’t accept the teachings of prophet so-and-so or the revelation of Mr. X or the Holy Text of the Jibber-Jabbers, etc., etc. for all the religions in the world, then you are implicitly saying that it’s possible for people to be mistaken about spiritual experience.

Either those other “revelations” and texts were inspired by some kind of demon or the people involved were just mistaking their imagination for a real encounter with a deity.

Well, now, once you’ve admitted that, you’re sunk. On what grounds do you distinguish one revelation or one holy text from another? Once you accept that it’s possible for revelations and holy texts to be wrong, how do you decide which ones are correct? How do you come to the conclusion that any of them are correct?

Religion isn’t a subject like art criticism, where the claims are about subjective taste. Religions make extraordinary claims about the world around us, and all of them make vastly different claims. In any field where the goal is to learn more about the world around us, there is inevitably a mechanism for distinguishing fact from fiction.

There’s no actual field where you have to “accept” claims about the world (and no, mathematical axioms don’t admit of comparison because they’re parts of systems that we invented). There’s no actual field where daydreams are said to yield reliable information about the world.

 

[AntiTheist]

the BIble which at every turn is playing out to be Archaelogically and Geographically correct, like with Sodom and Gomorah from Genisis, Exodus, etc etc.

To be clear, the fact that stories are set in real places doesn’t mean that the content of the stories is true – it certainly doesn’t mean that the supernatural parts of the stories are true.

Troy was a real place – does this mean that everything that happened in the Iliad and the Odyssey really happened?

New York is a real place – does this mean that the Spider Man movies depict real events?

And to add the reality of 85% accuracy of the “yearly” exorcisms performed by the church

The fact that there are superstitious people who treat psychiatric episodes by dressing up and speaking magical words over the afflicted person doesn’t confirm that anything supernatural is going on.

Of course, if you’d like to do some of these exorcisms under controlled laboratory conditions, that would be great. Let’s see some beds levitating and heads turning all the way around in a controlled setting. Why do you suppose that this hasn’t been done?

Then we have “PUBLIC” apparitions of Our Lady witnessed by Hundreds of Thousands

The argument from ghost stories. It runs like this: “A bunch of people once saw something weird that no one can explain – therefore, supernatural claim X is true!”

People thinking that they saw something weird cannot be evidence for the supernatural.

None of which explain out existance in the Universe? Do you have a theory of that. thats proven? Proven now, like the evidence I just gave you about the battle you in, and don’t realize.

The fact that we don’t know much about the origins of the universe doesn’t make any supernatural ideas any more likely to be true.

How about this theory, just a theory now, maybe. just maybe, Your Wrong.

Of course I could be wrong, but in the same way, neither of us believe in Zeus, and we could both be wrong about that. Or we could both be wrong about the Hindu gods or the Muslim god.

The only way we have to tell is evidence, and if the best evidence you have for your belief is the poor argumentation you’ve exhibited in this thread, you can keep it.

 

[4Horsemen]

I enjoy writing about this stuff. If my posts help one or two people sort out their own thoughts on the subject, then all the better.

I’m glad you have such benevolent and altruistic reasons for posting on this forum. However, your choice of calling yourself “Antitheist”, a militant title, instead of merely “Nontheist” exposes your intentions.

I was thinking more like showing them a picture from when their parents were dating or when their parents were little kids. Show them that there was a time when they didn’t exist.

So there was a time when we didn’t exist (except in the mind of God who sees everything eternally outside of time), but the fact that we do now has meaning for our future existence (perhaps in another dimension?) Do you accept the findings of science? Many thought the idea of a bacterium or virus was once unthinkable. In other words, you DO accept/believe what you cannot see even though the evidence is founded by other individuals. Consider . . . Jesus’ 40 days on earth after the Resurrection were seen and recorded (actually around 50 or slightly more) by many trustworthy men and women. Take a trip in the catacombs to see the evidence of the early martyrs who gave their lives for what they knew as Truth–that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.

It’s the concept of “not existing” that’s the stumbling block for a lot of people, so the first thing you have to do is to establish that at one time, every person did “not exist.” Not existing is nothing to be afraid of.

I submit that even those who don’t believe in a god who “sees” and “judges” all have good reasons to lead what is typically referred to as a “good life.”

Honestly, I find the idea that we will always exist to be a thought that very much devalues this life. What’s the point in telling the people you care about how much you care about them if you’re going to have forever to do it some day? What’s the point of enjoying all that life has to offer if you sincerely believe – based on no evidence whatsoever – that you have an eternity of unimaginably great experiences waiting for you after death?

Several of your points have been addressed already in a very clear manner. All I can add is that this life is like a test, in a sense. The place we arrive at (spiritually) when we die is a portent of the place we have in eternity. This is true for all people, including Christians, some of whom believe but do not completely act on their beliefs. According to some of the great saints, there are levels in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory of enjoyment and fullfillment or suffering and even damnation. I’m reading a book about a holy nun who had the gift of helping Jesus carry His cross in a REAL instead of figurative way. As Christians we can accept the crosses in our daily life with equanimity or in a resentful way. The choice is always ours.

What’s the value of a life that’s just a prelude for something “better” that you imagine is going to happen to you?

I can tell you that accepting the reality that there probably isn’t some “other life” is something that makes every single experience in this life – the only life – feel a heck of a lot more precious.

So do you feel completely fulfilled in this life?

I can only tell you my experience of having left the Church. At first, I felt freed and self-gratified. The “self” in me became more important than any other thing. Life revolved around me. I’m not saying this attitude is true for every atheist, but I think it may often be the case even though many, like you, try to help others to see their pitfalls and their existential loss by choosing to believe in God the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. I agree that we should make the best of our lives, but the BEST is resting in the heart of God. Then we know that He will take care of us and that every detail of our lives is His concern. Humble yourself before the Lord, and you will begin Heaven on earth.

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you accept the findings of science?

Generally speaking, yes, because I have a great deal of evidence that findings based on evidence are very likely to be true.

For example, the computer that you’re reading this message on was the product of evidence-based inquiry. The fact that it works demonstrates that evidence-based inquiry reveals truth about the world.

Many thought the idea of a bacterium or virus was once unthinkable.

Sure. And then we acquired evidence that convinced people otherwise. That’s the key word here.

In other words, you DO accept/believe what you cannot see even though the evidence is founded by other individuals.

Huh? It sounds like you’re conflating two different weirdo claims here:

1. You believe in things you can’t see!
2. You believe in things on the basis of the testimony of other people!

The fact of the matter is that we don’t need to “see” things to know they exist – we need evidence of their existence, which does not have to be visual. For example, no one has seen an electron, but we can perform experiments that demonstrate that they manifest in ways that affect the world.

Furthermore, the fact that I haven’t personally performed all of these experiments does not mean that I accept the “findings of science” on anything remotely resembling faith. What we have done is to set up a body of experts that peer-review one another’s work (other scientists find errors and problems with ideas before they are published). It’s the peer-review process that makes it very likely that the findings of science are true: I’m not trusting one or two scientists; I’m trusting the entire scientific community, which has set up systems of checks to make sure that information they publish is most likely true.

And furthermore, the information they use is available to anyone. If I really wanted to, I could go out and repeat their experiments, if it ever became really important to me.

Now certainly, I don’t accept all of science. I don’t know enough about Quantum Mechanics, for example, to have a strong opinion on it, and it’s too speculative and new an area of science for there to be a clear scientific consensus on it. So I just honestly say, “I don’t know.”

Not knowing some things is fine.

Consider . . . Jesus’ 40 days on earth after the Resurrection were seen and recorded (actually around 50 or slightly more) by many trustworthy men and women.

As I noted, the gospels we have are anonymous texts written down decades after the supposed events (at the earliest) by cult members who worshipped this legendary figure. I don’t consider that to be sufficient evidence for accepting supernatural claims.

Take a trip in the catacombs to see the evidence of the early martyrs who gave their lives for what they knew as Truth–that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.

That people are willing to die for a claim tells us nothing about the truth of the claim.

So do you feel completely fulfilled in this life?

Yes.

And if I didn’t, it wouldn’t be evidence that there must be some “other world” where I will be fulfilled some day.

 

[Light1111]

a priori:

I appreciated your question. I never quite conceived of your question in those precise terms, but seeing it spelled out as you did, really struck a chord within me.

In another thread, a person asked for people who had left the CC to state their reasons for doing so. I wrote my reasons out.

Now that I think about it, the real reason underlying all my “sub-reasons” was that I found I “could not believe” certain of the tenets of the CC–which, it had been my understanding, one must accept on faith, in order to truly consider oneself a Catholic. I did not feel I had any personal choice in those areas where I “could not believe” – I just didn’t believe as we were taught. That “left me out” of the Catholic Church, as far as I could see.

Now I am wondering if it is truly possible to “force belief” on specific issues – as you pointed out, one either does or doesn’t believe something. Responders to your post held excellent points to the contrary, however: “One accepts an authority on faith,” e.g. one knows which cookbook to use in following recipes; so too, one decides the Catholic Church has earned its authority, and if on certain points one wrestles with belief, one gives up greater understanding to one’s Church, accepting the Authority the Church provides.

I suppose that one has the option of “accepting” something, even if one doesn’t truly “believe” it. So, if one decides, “I am a Catholic, no matter what,” then happens upon specific edits/laws that they find “difficult to believe,” one can think to himself, “Well, to my mind, the Catholic Church has earned its salt; it’s fair to let this specific ‘belief’ go, and trust the CC is correct. I may never understand ___, but that’s ok, I’m still a Catholic.”

I suppose I’m one person who was unable to do this on a few points, so I found myself necessarily deciding “I am not a Catholic.” As I mentioned in the other discussion, I know it is frowned upon to pick and choose which matters you agree with, and which you don’t; formally, if you are a Catholic, you are to adhere to all teachings of the CC. It is considered an infraction, for instance, if one goes ahead and uses birth control, despite edicts to the contrary. One (I suppose?) is not a “strict Catholic” by that standard.

It is a difficult quandary, to be sure; one I myself have not fully answered. Thank you for bringing up this difficult and thoughtful topic. I appreciate knowing others wrestle with such matters of faith.

Peace,
Light1111

 

[a_priori]

It seems that for a lot of people’s beliefs (religious type) is ingrained as they have been born into it and raised in a particular church or set of doctrines. Many never give it a second thought. Those who actually decide to think about it may or may not choose to believe the faith handed down to them for various reasons, but become accustomed to the routine and people around them who have varying beliefs of the same order.

I don’t think anyone would fall into the category “required to believe.” First of all, people don’t like to think of themselves as required to do anything, that every choice is freely their own. To truly have a mind-set of actual belief, one must think X is true (as mentioned above), but one can be deceived (deceiving oneself) to believe X because it fits their lifestyle or pattern of thinking. Consider, for example, those who disagree with the Church on birth control although they accept her doctrines. They often move out to a church that conforms to their new belief.

Or, as another example, a friend of mine recently left the Catholic faith because her boyfriend is a Muslim, so she was “required” to accept the new dogma. I really don’t think she believes it all underneath, but doesn’t admit it. Like it said above, she wanted to believe X so badly, she talked herself into it.

As a final example, when I returned to the Catholic faith after a bout of atheism, I first had to find God before I could understand who Jesus was. But when I accepted Jesus (after reading, thinking, praying), everything fell into place–all the doctrines, the Bible, the Mass, the devotions. So, it’s apparent that one doesn’t have to consider each dogma separately to believe, but that the faith one receives after a commitment brings it all together like a Rubix cube.

You make some very good points. When I was Orthodox, many people converted in order to marry a person of that faith. Often people start with the destination and then work backwards. This is odd to me. I’m not judging the quality of anyone’s faith experience. It’s just that the concept and its chronology are weird to me.

 

[a_priori]

If you believe something simply because you want to be “part of the club” – i.e. if you can’t give good, solid evidence and reasoned argument for why you think that X is true – then you’re claiming to believe something that you might, upon further examination, decide that you don’t really believe in at all.

It seems that many people aren’t interested in exerting energy to know what they believe. This is true for atheists as well.

 

[a_priori]

… if you have put your trust in the Catholic Church, you will believe the things that it teaches.

I understand your overall point. However, I would argue that this sentence is backwards. Do you see my point?

 

[a_priori]

But this must all be proven to us-or else it would just be someone elses’ belief-not our own. As one does come to agree with the Church, they inevitably become “more Catholic”.

Good point.

 

[a_priori]

You can choose to believe

My problem is that I see this as a non sequitur.

 

[a_priori]

This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions.

It might be legitimate to ask what happens when two people using the same approach arrive at mutually-exclusive destinations? What happens to the concept of truth? One doesn’t have to even go outside Christendom to see this. Calvinists and Arminians both use Sola Scriptura to place themselves in opposing “dugouts”.

 

[a_priori]

a priori:

I appreciated your question. I never quite conceived of your question in those precise terms, but seeing it spelled out as you did, really struck a chord within me.

In another thread, a person asked for people who had left the CC to state their reasons for doing so. I wrote my reasons out.

Now that I think about it, the real reason underlying all my “sub-reasons” was that I found I “could not believe” certain of the tenets of the CC–which, it had been my understanding, one must accept on faith, in order to truly consider oneself a Catholic. I did not feel I had any personal choice in those areas where I “could not believe” – I just didn’t believe as we were taught. That “left me out” of the Catholic Church, as far as I could see.

Now I am wondering if it is truly possible to “force belief” on specific issues – as you pointed out, one either does or doesn’t believe something. Responders to your post held excellent points to the contrary, however: “One accepts an authority on faith,” e.g. one knows which cookbook to use in following recipes; so too, one decides the Catholic Church has earned its authority, and if on certain points one wrestles with belief, one gives up greater understanding to one’s Church, accepting the Authority the Church provides.

I suppose that one has the option of “accepting” something, even if one doesn’t truly “believe” it. So, if one decides, “I am a Catholic, no matter what,” then happens upon specific edits/laws that they find “difficult to believe,” one can think to himself, “Well, to my mind, the Catholic Church has earned its salt; it’s fair to let this specific ‘belief’ go, and trust the CC is correct. I may never understand ___, but that’s ok, I’m still a Catholic.”

I suppose I’m one person who was unable to do this on a few points, so I found myself necessarily deciding “I am not a Catholic.” As I mentioned in the other discussion, I know it is frowned upon to pick and choose which matters you agree with, and which you don’t; formally, if you are a Catholic, you are to adhere to all teachings of the CC. It is considered an infraction, for instance, if one goes ahead and uses birth control, despite edicts to the contrary. One (I suppose?) is not a “strict Catholic” by that standard.

It is a difficult quandary, to be sure; one I myself have not fully answered. Thank you for bringing up this difficult and thoughtful topic. I appreciate knowing others wrestle with such matters of faith.

Peace,
Light1111

It seems that many of us wrestle with these issues. Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[tskrobacz]

It might be legitimate to ask what happens when two people using the same approach arrive at mutually-exclusive destinations? What happens to the concept of truth? One doesn’t have to even go outside Christendom to see this. Calvinists and Arminians both use Sola Scriptura to place themselves in opposing “dugouts”.

By mutually-exclusive do you mean in our eyes or in the eyes of God? We are forever unable to know the unknowable God and grasp the ungraspable truth of all things. Our’s is a situation where all we can do is experience the joy and beauty of creation and be humbled and grateful to have the opportunity to live within it. From that orientation we can surrender to the notion that something beyond our seeing or knowing has brought this dance into existence…or as some would say is existence itself.

Things that are “beliefs” (eg. The Churches stance on Gay Marriage) are born of large “group-think” in so much as the Church and all large organizations are forced to take sides and answer bigger questions. As individuals, we can operate in the REALity of everyday life including the experience of spirit when 2 or 3 are gathered (Matt 18) - at that level much of the deep theological ramblings of religion have nothing to offer - allowing Love to be the ultimate and only answer.

 

[mark_a]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

“Required to believe” for the most part, for Joe 12pack, means “cannot be denied”.

Thank you.

You’re welcome!

 

[a_priori]

By mutually-exclusive do you mean in our eyes or in the eyes of God?

Yes.

 

[4Horsemen]

Generally speaking, yes, because I have a great deal of evidence that findings based on evidence are very likely to be true.

Of course you mean physical evidence which is the realm of science. But consider that science depends on inductive reasoning, so that certain claims or ideas will be left out because they may not even have been discovered yet. So, in the final analysis, the results may not be correct (as happened before). Yet, we tend to trust that science will discover the “missing links” or pieces to a puzzle. Of course, the distinct methodologies of physics and metaphysics differ. New evidence exists for creation and design, which we are not “required to believe” but the proofs are based on rational thinking and considering them would be an advantage to understanding our universe and its Creator.

Huh? It sounds like you’re conflating two different weirdo claims here:

1. You believe in things you can’t see!
2. You believe in things on the basis of the testimony of other people!

Huh? Weirdo? Why can’t I have it both ways? Some things we believe though we can’t see them (as you mentioned), and some things we believe because of what others have testified in the court of law for one thing. In faith, we accept the testimony of reliable sources such that we can accept the knowledge of the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. In fact, if we accept Christianity, itself, we are “required to believe” this dogma. All of the important doctrines are contained in the Creed (Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed).

The fact of the matter is that we don’t need to “see” things to know they exist – we need evidence of their existence, which does not have to be visual. For example, no one has seen an electron, but we can perform experiments that demonstrate that they manifest in ways that affect the world.

Ahhh. . . I can say the same thing that “we don’t need to ‘see’ things to know they exist – we believe evidence of their existence, which does not have to be visual.” Like an Intelligent Designer??? We have evidence all around of His existence although He chooses not to be visual to us earthlings, for the most part. (Many of the great saints have seen, witnessed, experienced God and spiritual events. Think about the saints who had the stigmata, the various revelations like Divine Mercy, Fatima, Lourdes?) How do you explain supernatural events? Hallucination?

Furthermore, the fact that I haven’t personally performed all of these experiments does not mean that I accept the “findings of science” on anything remotely resembling faith.

The writer of Hebrews wrote: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) The Bible teaches that faith is based on evidence–strong, clear, reliable evidence. It is logical and historical, not a blind leap in the dark. It is not grounded in subjective feelings. God provides the evidence; we believe based on that evidence.

Try reading Father Robert J. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God. I’m working on it along with a few other books and little time to read.

Now certainly, I don’t accept all of science. I don’t know enough about Quantum Mechanics, for example, to have a strong opinion on it, and it’s too speculative and new an area of science for there to be a clear scientific consensus on it. So I just honestly say, “I don’t know.”

Not knowing some things is fine.

Except when it comes to your eternal salvation.

As I noted, the gospels we have are anonymous texts written down decades after the supposed events (at the earliest) by cult members who worshipped this legendary figure. I don’t consider that to be sufficient evidence for accepting supernatural claims.

That people are willing to die for a claim tells us nothing about the truth of the claim.

The gospels were preached by word of mouth and little by little written down but not in a whole volume. It was the Council of Carthage, held in 397 A.D. that settled the Canon of New Testament Scriptures. Should that lessen their authority just because someone didn’t walk around with a scroll and ink like a reporter following Jesus around? And I think that if someone is willing to die for their beliefs, what they believe may or may not be true (think 9/11) but it points to something within us that makes us capable of strong beliefs, but, of course, they must be based on reason. (Why are we capable of belief in the first place? Little neurons in the brain along pathways? Since the brain is a physical object, wouldn’t we run out of spaces, pathways, etc . . . in which to encode every thought, every feeling/emotion, every action?

My suggestion would be to read the four gospels first and then the letters of St. Paul and the apostles. Read them to find a message for yourself. Every time I read Scripture, I found something particularly for me because I expected it and believed it.

God bless!