Should I read Atheist Literature?

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

1. If God endowed us with reason (which surely, to the believer, He has done), then far be it for him to confound it by telling us not to regard it. We should inspect and scrutinize every cosmic detail with the same rigor as we would anything else in the world, so as to cast of the shackles of confirming evidence. Let’s imagine, too, that there is some objective truth to be had (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Atheism; whatever it was that you’ve come to employ as your source of spirituality). If all of these religions said not to scrutinize each belief system’s basic elements, then indeed, a large portion of the world would never be privy to that Truth (if it could at all be attained)
2. If a faith is genuine, neither powers nor principalities… etc. If there is good cause for believing what you do, than it will be well supported by the reason which God himself has credited his people. If there is no good reason in it, than there should be no worry as to the condition of your faith. If you find that it has become, through your investigation, completely bankrupt, so be it; you should feel secure in believing what reason has declared to be the Truth. There is a stigma attached to having faith that is damaged or in turmoil (I won’t get into the fact that, if it is God who distributes a measure of faith according to his own caprice, that human endeavour cannot possibly augment it), but that shouldn’t be; there are safeguards on all religions that prohibit indulgence in alternative philosophies for fear that the internal workings of the religion may fall apart at the seams.
3. Just as you assume that people of other religions have not been granted a measure of faith by God, or seen some divine revelation, but rather adopted the spiritual ordinances of the culture at hand, or have been lead astray from the true faith by evil forces, you may also find that you yourself are equally guilty. You may begin to see that Religion is an aberration of the entire world, and that your beliefs do not wield a monopoly on what others would simply see as superstition.
4. There is little doubt in my mind (as I am exemplar of just this fact) that if you examine your faith earnestly and look to disconfirming evidence (the very atheistic literature that you’re leery of), you will, in fact, find it hard to be a good believer. Reading such atheistic pieces whittles down the assumptions that we have about faith and belief until there is scarcely anything left to sustain it (mind you, this takes a long time, as people of all religions – as I used to be – are very tenacious about what they believe). There may be nothing more discomforting than the idea of loosing that which we see as key to our very existence, but after some thoughtful consideration, there is nothing more comforting that ridding yourself of the very superstitions that you have not only been accusing other religious people of accepting, but those which have struck fear and obscurity into the hearts and minds of billions of people around the world.
5. If you’re going to examine your faith and read disconfirming evidence, don’t let the temptation to debunk it in favour of your beliefs anesthetise you. Consider thoughtfully, if only perchance, the things which non-believers have asserted. Don’t be tempted to think “know thy enemy” – for in this, you’ve already decided what you want to believe notwithstanding any reason which lead you there. In other words, don’t show partiality to a position simply because you fancy it (neither atheism nor Christianity nor any other)

Good luck to you, and may you know the Truth (whatever the form of that may be)

 

[StrawberryJam]

I hope this thread is actually what you wanted to start and investigate, because after reading voice of reason’s post, I am hoping you are not regretting opening this door now.

This is dangerous territory for one to wander into I think.

Voice of Reason was a believer.

He is not anymore.

I know Catholics don’t believe in once saved, always saved theology.

Now you can see why you are right to belive that.

 

[Matthias123]

How are you to argue against atheists if you do not know the mind of the atheist? It’s like trying to argue against Kant, and not knowing his philosophy – you will just be picking at straw.

 

[StrawberryJam]

How are you to argue against atheists if you do not know the mind of the atheist? It’s like trying to argue against Kant, and not knowing his philosophy – you will just be picking at straw.

pretty sure the OP made it clear they had no intentions to evangelize them.

Don’t worry. It’s not what you would think. Believers are supposed to do that, but not all can, or do. This site is set up for the very purpose for catholic believers to be better evangelists.

 

[PlipPlop]

Yes. If your belief is so easily shaken, doesn’t that say something about your belief?

Everyone should read the literature of sides they support and sides they are against. Even if you don’t change your mind, you will know more about the opposition, such as why they feel the way they do, and how to reason with them. Besides, if you know absolutely nothing about the other side, how do you know yours is the right one?

Imagine you’re in a blue box. There is a black door, and an orange door, and a red door, each leading to another box of the same color. Everyone in your life has told you that God lives in the blue box, and you’ve never questioned it, just like you’ve never questioned whether or not dropping a pen will make the pen fall on the floor. But how do you know that God isn’t waiting for you in the orange box?

Now, for my own experience: I am no longer a Catholic. I believe that God is the sum of the physical laws of the universe. He is the goodness in the world. Some may say I’m an atheist. One person compared my beliefs to saying “I define my table lamp as God, I am a theist!”, and while I don’t really have a good answer to that, I do not strictly regard myself as an atheist. My status shows “semi-Christian” because I believe that Jesus was divinely inspired (not exactly because of God’s will, but because of God’s nature if that makes any sense). Why? Because that’s just what makes sense. I guess you could call me “nonreligious”, since as far I as know there are no religions that believe what I believe. If you know of one, let me know.

If Catholicism is right for you, that’s great! Maybe I just didn’t understand it well. But, still, you should look into all viewpoints. Most other religions have a kernel of truth and goodness in them, and something that you could use to make yourself a better person, even if most of it is junk. For example, Buddhism has some nice teachings, but also includes reincarnation.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck in your endeavors, and may you be drawn closer to God.

 

[flyingfish]

As a faithful Catholic, am I encouraged, discouraged, or neither regarding reading Atheist literature? This question came to mind after reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, where he had an example of someone in hell who simply followed a faith that he never really questioned (he always read literature and talks that simply agreed with his faith). Now I know this is just an opinion by Lewis, but it does bring up a good point - is it our duty to truly explore all possibilities in depth in order to strengthen our faith, or is it perfectly fine to read Catholic and only Catholic literature?

I’ve always enjoyed reading atheist vs. Catholic debates, but I’ve typically always read them from a Catholic source. Well, like we don’t like for folks to misrepresent our beliefs, I feel that you need to hear what an atheist “really says” as well instead of what someone else says that they say. However, when considering reading such stuff from Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, it still just doesn’t feel right and feels like I’m going down a dark road that may not be in my best interests. I’m not afraid of reading it or hearing the other side’s views, as the truth will set you free - just a little cautious to giving too much time and creedence to what may be meaningless propaganda. The way I see it, reading such stuff will either strengthen my faith like never before or will instead make me question it altogether. It’s a crossroads, and I welcome any and all opinions on the matter.

You’re certainly not obligated to read atheist literature, and I don’t think a person can go to hell because they were not particularly inquisitive about other faiths or atheism. I read The Great Divorce and I don’t remember a character like you described, that said I read it a very long time ago and I don’t remember that much about it. I would be surprised if Lewis put such a character in the book though, because many people simply aren’t intellectual and don’t take the time to learn all points of view. It would be very arrogant for an intellectual to suggest that such people should go to hell. Lewis doesn’t strike me as someone like that.

If you enjoy reading about points of view that contradict your own, go for it.

There is a risk that reading atheist literature will make it more likely for you to become an atheist, there’s also a risk that if you only read things to reinforce your faith that your own faith will waver because you’ll feel you have it only because you deliberately chose to ignore other views.

 

[PJM]

=mm356;6116037]As a faithful Catholic, am I encouraged, discouraged, or neither regarding reading Atheist literature? This question came to mind after reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”, where he had an example of someone in hell who simply followed a faith that he never really questioned (he always read literature and talks that simply agreed with his faith). Now I know this is just an opinion by Lewis, but it does bring up a good point - is it our duty to truly explore all possibilities in depth in order to strengthen our faith, or is it perfectly fine to read Catholic and only Catholic literature?

I’ve always enjoyed reading atheist vs. Catholic debates, but I’ve typically always read them from a Catholic source. Well, like we don’t like for folks to misrepresent our beliefs, I feel that you need to hear what an atheist “really says” as well instead of what someone else says that they say. However, when considering reading such stuff from Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, it still just doesn’t feel right and feels like I’m going down a dark road that may not be in my best interests. I’m not afraid of reading it or hearing the other side’s views, as the truth will set you free - just a little cautious to giving too much time and creedence to what may be meaningless propaganda. The way I see it, reading such stuff will either strengthen my faith like never before or will instead make me question it altogether. It’s a crossroads, and I welcome any and all opinions on the matter.

***It’s a personal decision that requires prudence.

The degree of knowledge of one’s faith and the motive for doing so are critical issues.

One who is “new” or as St. Paul terms " a babe" ought to avoid such opportunities, as should one who is just curious or nosy. [Avoidence of the near occassion of possible sin.]

On the other hand, one mature in the Faith, seeking beeter understanding, might make good use of the arguments set fort in such information. One would be prudent to pray for guidence before doing so. ***

 

[Touchstone]

Bingo. I don’t wish to study atheism in depth or anything and do not plan to be an active apologist who calls out atheists for conversion (only to be prepared if the topic comes up). I just wish to read the atheist viewpoint straight from the horse’s mouth simply because I just don’t understand the line of thinking. I’ve heard the atheist arguments, and I’ve heard the theist responses. To me, the theist responses always win out. But I do know that there are many intelligent atheists, and I’m always curious as to why people think the way they do and how two intelligent people can have two totally opposite views on matters. My curiousity is leading me to the atheist literature simply to see if the atheist arguments I’ve heard up until now have been accurate, and if so, the rationale that accompanies these arguments that would lead one to continue this line of thinking.

I encourage you to read atheist literature, at least the thoughtful offerings out there, but I want to suggest that you would profit by become more and more familiar with what’s out there, but it likely won’t help with the question of “totally opposite views on matters”. This is because, in my view, that opposition precedes and eclipses argumentation itself; Christianity, like so many other religions, embraces base intuition, first and foremost, and this embrace makes arguments pretty much secondary. Interesting, often, but secondary.

As a committed Christian for nearly years, I “just knew” there was a God and that he loved me and sent his son to die for me and save me from my sins. It didn’t really matter what holes got shot in the evidentiary accounting for Biblical accounts or what not. My intuition told me that God was real and true, and that was enough to make the flimsiest argument prevail over the strongest counter-arguments, as for me, and I think for a great many theists, reasoned arguments were/are a bit of a red herring. Intuition is the master, and evidence and reason cannot overcome it, often times.

Which may be an asset to your inquiry. If your trust in your intuitions of God, your confidence in what you “just know” or “just believe” apart from and unaccountable to any reasoned analysis on the evidence available is strong, then you can learn and appreciate the other side in insularity.

But you won’t make progress as to why two intelligent people can be so far apart on such an important question. That doesn’t reduce to one argument versus another. Rather, it becomes a referendum on credulity itself, and man’s trust in his own intuition OVER AND AGAINST anything that argumentation can address. This is one reason why science and atheism have such a natural resonance: science is in large part the enterprise of throwing down intuition as the judge of truth and reality, leaving intuitions as the imaginative and suggestive source of (name removed by moderator)ut and hypothesis, but eschewing it from the throne religion has long placed it on, as final judge and authority.

In saying this, a story from Dr. Peter Kreeft comes to mind: he said he always does a class experiment in which the theists have to defend the atheist viewpoint, and the atheists have to defend the theist viewpoint, and he said without fail that the theists can represent the atheists viewpoint much, much better than vice versa. Perhaps that’s where I am now, and I’m just mislead into thinking it really should be more complicated than that. Perhaps it is as simple and cut and dry as I think it is right now. But there’s only one way to find out. When I used the term “crossroads” earlier, it wasn’t meant as a “crisis of faith” moment, but instead a point in life where a decision has to be made. You either take that path or you don’t (or you just stand there doing nothing indefinitely!). But if you don’t, you wanna be sure you’re not always going to look back and wish you had. That’s what I meant by a crossroads.

As above, the atheist argument, in a contest of equals, arguments vs. arguments, wins outright, if only because it is the null hypothesis. It’s totally asymmetric. Think of the question of whether unicorns exist. Which side would be easier to defend, per Kreeft’s classroom experiment? The “negative” team simply points out that we lack what we require for even a minimally justifiable belief in the reality of such creatures, and that’s that. You cannot show unicorns don’t exist in any universal sense, even in principle. But no need – there’s just a LACK of credible positive argument for Unicornism.

Theists often balk at the comparison of the question of God’s existence to the question of the unicorn’s existence. The basis for the complaint – the points of disanalogy – are instructive here. What distinguishes these questions?

As has been pointed on this forum, humans do not have a pervasive intuition of unicorn-reality that stretches back over many millenia and across many diverse cultures. This is precisely where the intuition problem comes to the fore and interferes with arguments that are based on evidence and analysis of that evidence (toward objective thinking about objective states of reality). Objecting theists are correct in pointing out that difference; human intuitions are quite different concerning supernatural deities than unicorns. But that is precisely why I use that analogy, because it shines the light on the determining dynamic – brute faith in one’s intuitions over any kind of corrigibility by the evidence and analysis.

All of which to say, the arguments you will hear from man atheists, if you haven’t read this already, are really critiques of intuition, and the starting assumptions of theism. That is, if you don’t start with a theistic premise, it’s very hard to get there intellectually. Arguments come second in the same sense that “proofs” are secondary to axioms in geometry, and dependent upon them.

-TS

 

[Magnanimity]

TS,

You provided a very thoughtful and interesting (and lengthy) response such that I think you could be engaged from many angles. Let me just take your one quote below though:

“This is one reason why science and atheism have such a natural resonance: science is in large part the enterprise of throwing down intuition as the judge of truth and reality, leaving intuitions as the imaginative and suggestive source of (name removed by moderator)ut and hypothesis, but eschewing it from the throne religion has long placed it on, as final judge and authority.”

To a certain extent, I’m with you here. I think your criticism is right on. However, it seems clear to me that it’s more a criticism that is applicable to humanity, generally, no matter how one feels about religion. People just do tend to hold all kinds of beliefs without often putting their beliefs through some sort of rigorous examination before assent is given. This is true for the theist, the pantheist or the atheist. And, often, the support of various beliefs reduces itself down to, “well, that’s just how it seems to me,” or some such expression. So, in this sense, you’re not exclusively critiquing religious people as you are the whole of humanity.

Second, I think your comments run the risk of falling into some sort of historical naïveté when you claim that religion basically enthrones ‘intuition’ as final judge and arbiter of what is true. This is a view of religion that is so grossly oversimplified, that an informed religious individual could hardly take it seiously. I only address it here because it seems so common a misconception that it’s worthy of critique. If you are famliar with the history of the Church, you’ll be appreciative, I imagine, of the frequency in which the greatest minds of the Church engaged broader culture and itself through extensive debate and intellectual rigor.

I think there can tend to be this view of Catholicism that holds something like the following: the laity basically are a bunch of devoted simpletons (like little children) who do little more than sit around and wait for the bishops (acting as our parents) to tell us what we are to believe. In reality, the history of the progress of dogma within the Church looks much more like the scientific community, if anything. Very capable minds suggest and defend various positions through the criticism of their peers. And the very induction you claim is championed in science is the basic history of so many debates within Catholicism. One could hardly count the number of times a theologian’s intuition has been “thrown down” after the critique of his peers has come into contact with his ideas.

Third, and I only mention this briefly, I think it highly likely that this “resonance” you speak of between atheists and science is psychologically based in large part and probably falls prey to the criticism of intuition you give above. We all, quite naturally, run into the arms of something bigger and stronger than our individual selves.

 

[AlbertBall]

mm356 - “I just wish to read the atheist viewpoint straight from the horse’s mouth simply because I just don’t understand the line of thinking”

Touchstone - “That is, if you don’t start with a theistic premise, it’s very hard to get there intellectually.”

For me this sums it up perfectly.

 

[reggieM]

And ReggieM, I appreciate the point you made about prayer - it’s a very valid point indeed, and I didn’t take your post as coming across as too dogmatic. Prayer is the tie that binds, and I think it could be dangerous treading down a potentially slippery slope without some security. Sometimes I am very guilty of getting too carried away in the logic and arguments for faith instead of the actual practice and spirituality of the faith, and I took your post as a good reminder to not get too out of balance in this regard.

Thanks, mm. That’s really what I was getting at – some things I’ve learned from my own mistakes and tendencies to get absorbed in logic and reading rather than the far more important matters of spiritual growth and practice of the faith.

Thanks for understanding – and I do agree that your interest is valid and worth pursuing with appropriate caution.

 

[reggieM]

You practically belittle atheism and suggest the appropriate response is some sort of insular approach where we read the ‘Catholic classics’ and make sure our praying is in a 1 to 1 correspondence to our reading. (What are those Catholic classics, btw? Did you mean Newman, Congar, Rahner, Von Balthasar and the like?)

I think you misrepresented what I said – I think it deserves a more magnanimous reading.

For reflection (no need to answer, but just consider) …

When “engaging with atheists”, what is more powerful and effective in bringing a person to the Catholic Faith: intellectual arguments or spiritual power?

As for Catholic Classics – no, I wouldn’t limit them to 20th century works. If you consider the breadth of Catholic literature, and the time, effort and difficulty that is required for mastering even a small part of it, I think you’ll be more sympathetic with my view. Let’s start with the apostolic fathers and work our way forward.

Here’s a quote from a modern-day Catholic Classic (from 1964, thus the Cold War reference, but still relevant to this topic:

In these times when the lines of battle are being drawn more and more clearly between the forces of religion and those of atheism, we see the devotees of each of these systems calling upon every resource at their disposal. Before one can really fight for a cause, he must be fully convinced of the truth of it. He must ponder its ideals and adapt his thoughts and actions to it.
We can be sure that the fervent Communist gives serious thought and frequent consideration to the ideals for which he is sacrificing himself. Only in this way can he fire his zeal to continue the struggle. But we, as Christians, have a much greater cause to fight for. It is greater precisely because it is true and divine. How mistaken we are if we neglect to increase our knowledge of and zeal for our Faith. We can hardly expect to remain fervent and apostolic Christians unless we make it a practice to ponder the truths of our holy religion, to strive to identify our thoughts with those of Christ, our Leader, and to transform those thoughts into effective action in His service.
This book is a mine of inspirational thoughts, an excellent book of meditations which aims at helping us to review and concentrate on the treasures of our Faith, so that an intelligent appreciation thereof will become a significant factor in our thinking and acting. It should also prompt us to be one with Christ and to bring about the most intimate union that is possible in this life between souls and God. The author of DIVINE INTIMACY, Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., was one of the outstanding Discalced Carmelite authors and lecturers of modern times. A devout son of St. John of the Cross, he devoted himself generously and tirelessly to the task of promoting that desired union, both in himself and in others. His book of meditations for each day of the year is an outstanding part of his effort. Faithful to these meditations from day to day, we shall know Christ and live Christ, absorb His teachings more fully and become more dedicated to His service. Our zeal for the cause of Christ will then equal — nay, far outstrip — that of the atheistic Communist. He meditates on false doctrines, the work of Godless men, which lead him to become less than a man. The Christian meditates on the Gospel of Christ, which leads him to become something more than a man—to share in an intimate manner in the life of God Himself—to become Godlike, or in the words of St. John of the Cross, " God by participation. "

• Richard Cardinal Cushing Archbishop of Boston

Notice that atheistic thought causes him to “become less than a man”. That sounds like a perfect definition of “belittling” to me. But more importantly, this book of spiritual meditations is recommended by the Archbishop of Boston as a means of “becoming something more than a man”. This is the power of spiritual growth. It’s not undertaking to the exclusion of intellectual development. I did make that crystal-clear and that’s where you mis-understood/read/represented what I said.
But yes, if our intellectual pursuits are given a higher priority than our spiritual practices – there’s a problem for us.

So, that’s a great classic that we can work through. It does take a full year though.

Divine Intimacy: Meditations on the Interior Life for Every Day of the Liturgical Year
Divine Intimacy is undoubtedly the classic Carmelite work on meditation—a book that helps one arrive at intimate union with God by the practice of considering holy truths.

What I’m getting at is that Catholics need to be proactively engaging in today’s culture, and that includes major schools of thought and religious movements.

Yes, that’s true. My concern is that most Catholics are very poorly formed and when they engage the culture they end up either losing faith or communicating false values (as millions of pro-abortion Catholics do).

There is no way to deny that today atheism is a major school of thought in the academy (and is somewhat growing in popularity in the US and especially in Europe.)

I disagree here and I’ve heard enough atheists on CAF assert that atheism is merely a “non-belief” to convince me that it is not a school of thought at all. It’s simply a negation – a denial. But I can accept that you have a different point of view and I won’t engage in a debate about it.

 

[reggieM]

… Last minute update …

A Catholic Lifetime Reading Plan

That’s a sampling of Catholic Classics that takes a lifetime to absorb. Want to go further? Well, you could become a tenured professor with a light course-load and spend the rest of the day reading more.

But here’s Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. on the Lifetime Reading Plan:

The situation in the Church today requires men and women who take seriously Christ’s warning in the parable about the sower who sowed good seed. Some of the seed fell on the pathway where the birds of the air picked it up; it had no roots. As Christ explained, this symbolizes the people who begin as believers, but the devil comes along and steals the faith which they had received. Why? Because they failed to understand the word of God which had been sown in their hearts.

There is a proven way of not only preserving our faith, but of deepening our grasp of what we believe. How? By daily nourishing our minds on the faith of the literary masters of Catholic belief over the ages.

 

[PJM]

=edwest2;6117612]If I might add another point. Atheist ideas are old but they are brought back in new packages under new names. Richard Dawkins likes the word Bright. So, when people see free thinker or humanist or secularist, they might miss the atheist connotation. On an atheist web site, a poster encouraged others not to use the word since it tends to scare off those those who might become interested.

This is especially a problem for the young as well as those who are older but lacking in experience. And finally, anti-God or ‘replacement for God’ books are out there, usually using terms like ‘transformative,’ ‘enlightenment,’ ‘spiritual self-awareness,’ or simply offering a new way to ‘tap the power within you.’ Without a solid grounding in the faith, such books can cause spiritual problems, since they sometimes claim to offer ‘another path’ to becoming you - or God - or personal happiness, and so on.

Hope this helps,
Ed

***Thanks Ed,

Excelleny advice:thumbsup:***

 

[Sarpedon]

I think it’s critically important that your moral life be completely under control before you fully engage in your intellectual life. Aristotle said that moral virtue is a prerequisite to intellectual virtue, because a lack of virtue clouds our thinking and makes us less capable of using reason correctly. While it is certainly important that we consider all different viewpoints, Aristotle would likely say that we need to have enough virtue to be able to think clearly and stay on course during that consideration. If virtue is not well established, then bad emotions can wreak havoc with our intellectual judgement and insight- and I don’t think I need to bring up any examples of this.

 

[Dameedna]

If reading dawkins challenges your faith, then your faith is very shakey indeed.

And this is coming from An athiest.

Dawkins does occasionally present some very good information, but there is so much vitrolic, that you simply cannot view it for what it is. It is too emotional and to combative.

If you really want to read something that will challenge you , IE the other side, read books written by Shelby Spong.

He is actually a believer, but he understands the athiests very well, and agrees with them not only on principle, but because his studies into theology and history have shown the athiests to be correct on many accounts.

He is an angilican/episcapol" bishop who believes in a God.

You would get a much better view, of the athiest mindset(and the reasons for the rejection of religion) from him, than any athiest author today.

Start with - Removing the bible from fundamentalism.

Cheers
Dame

 

[Dameedna]

Bingo. I don’t wish to study atheism in depth or anything and do not plan to be an active apologist who calls out atheists for conversion (only to be prepared if the topic comes up). I just wish to read the atheist viewpoint straight from the horse’s mouth simply because I just don’t understand the line of thinking. !

The athiest argument.

Athiest’s lack a belief in God. Their reasons are varied and vast. Some people want to call “athiesm” a belief system, and they are free to do so. But if you want to understand the athiest, the first thing you need to do, is rid yourself of that notion. It is not a belief system.

it is a rejection of every belief system given to them, by other humans about a supernatural deity. They do not reject God, nor do they “believe” in something else.

They simply think that every person who is religious is wrong, in terms of there being a “thiestic” entity.

That is it.

So if you try and read “athiest” literature, you aren’t going to get a creed, or an organized belief, or even a logically coherant set of ideas.

You just cannot understand athiests, if you think like this. So make up your mind.

If you want to learn about the athiest mindset to strenghten your faith, then you are not interested in the athiest, and you will only read and think about the literature that strengthens your faith. Unfortunately a few of the more adamant athiest writers, much to their own stupidity, will do exactly that. They will strengthen your faith.

if you really want to understand the athiest, you firstly…must understand, within the core of your being, why you believe.

And be honest, like you’ve never been honest before.

Cheers
Dame

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Magnanimity
You practically belittle atheism and suggest the appropriate response is some sort of insular approach where we read the ‘Catholic classics’ and make sure our praying is in a 1 to 1 correspondence to our reading. (What are those Catholic classics, btw? Did you mean Newman, Congar, Rahner, Von Balthasar and the like?)

*** Very clever response!

But No, actually Thomas a’Kempis, John of the Cross, John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and of course the worlds all time best seller; the Catholic Bible would be far better choices.

Love and prayers,

Pat***

 

[Abeille]

Father Corapi and Ravi Zacharius have both spoken to this issue. To better discuss intelligently with individuals of different Faiths - or lack of - it helps to have an understanding of their particular beliefs. Father Corapi speaks of “knowing your ‘enemy’.” Both speakers have talked of opportunities to speak with those who practice Islam, Atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses - been there!! - various Protestant denominations - been there, too! , etc. It is hard to dialog well without understanding the point of view of others.

I agree with your point.
I know you are just quoting when you say, “knowing your ‘enemy’.”
I think we need to be careful, however, with word choice. ‘Enemy’ is such a strong word. We really shouldn’t be thinking of others as ‘enemies,’ nor should religion and reason be at war with each other.

 

[AndyF]

or is it perfectly fine to read Catholic and only Catholic literature?

Absolutely

Andy