Should science be secular?

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanstronian,

I have been reading your posts and responses back and forth and I have an idea I would like to share with you.

But this is a stance that is a result of your religious belief. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it has no bearing on the objective value of scientific discovery, particularly as there’s no evidence that “why” is even a valid question.

I think that faith in a “universal order” (in other words, consistency of natural effects throughout the universe) is important to science - otherwise its predictive power is threatened… but I don’t believe this necessitates a “Higher Power.”

As I appreciate your position, since there is no ‘proof’ of God’s existence, then proceed as though God does not exist. This basically means that God can never be used as an answer to any scientific inquiry.

While avoiding God in all things of life is certainly your right (we all have a free will) it does not appear to be either logical or prudent. Here is why:

IF there is a God and God chose to begin by creating a natural order (possibly as identified in Genesis 1) from which He freely created all things … yeah… back to Genesis, again… and someone comes around and says, “Hold on! There is no God because all of this happened according to a natural order. Case closed!” there seems to be a real problem here - at least the way I am looking at it.

A long time ago, scientists realized that there was a natural order to things - there is a certain predictibility here (even in what amouts to chaos [so they included that in their theories, too!) and on in particular went out on a very long limb to make his point. When I was a college Freshman in Chemistry, I vividly recall my prof telling me about the faith and courage of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834 - 1907) who developed the Periodic Table and then predicted the existance of an element and where it would be placed and its properties. Well, not only did the Russian chemists ridicule him … but, he was quite the laughing stock throughout the European chemical groups. Until his prediction was proven true!

Now, from our own expeiences (Newton’s, too) things just fall apart. But, you know, as well look around at the incredible order we see before us - Lord knows how old it all is (and, by the way, do you think we only had one Big Bang?) So, just what is going on - amongst all of this activity, we consistently find order. We find order in the heavens with the Hubel Space Telescope and right under our noses with the electron microscope. What a truly grand design, would you say? I know I would - and that is just one of the ideas on why I believe there is a very Grand Designer (I know you don’t like the term “Higher Power” - so, I offer another term… for God).

This last statement is just more of the gambler in me. There are only two possibilities: there either IS or ISN’T a God. No grey area on this playing field. Now, if there IS a God and I act like there is a God, I think God would at least be less displeased with me than if I acted like there wasn’t a God. Now, if there ISN’T a God and I act as though there is - I certainly will be leading a moral life that would allow me to try and be harmonious with my neighbors throughout the world, respect their property and their lives (and those of their unborn babies). So, my life on earth will probably be much happier than if I live a life that proclaims, “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!” Ultimatrely, it comes down to how you really see this arrangement - belief in God really does have more going for it. But, that is something that you have to work out for yourself (and, actually, I think the Grace of God will be helping you… )

God bless

[/COLOR]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheAtheist,

I enjoyed reading your post - and, you have an interesting way of presenting an idea… Forgive my limitations, but, let me address just one of your concepts and hopefully will provide an answer.

The point i was trying to make Buffalo is that it Took a Resurrection in the First place for them to believe. Not a philosophical argument.

Jesus didn’t pull a Pythagoras or a Plato or an Aristotle.

He demonstrated. Then Demonstrated Again. Then Demonstrated Again.

ie: CONTINUAL REINFORCEMENT.

Each time, the miracle got bigger right? Water into Wine. Bah.

Raising Lazarus however…I mean come on! That’s a big ticket seller!

And in the end that still wasn’t enough to keep faith under pressure. (Minus John)

It took the Great Big show stopper to bring them back. And even then one still wasn’t convinced until he did some fleshy poking around!

Which is why it boggles my mind when people say that the evidence for the existence of God is all around us and that all we have to do “open our minds” to it.

Frankly, before i sign up, i’ll have what the illiterate Fishermen got. They have higher standards of evidence.

You are sooooooo right, TheAtheist, this lack of faith was an on-going frustration for Christ. When you look at the Gospels, Christ chides His Apostles for not even having faith the size of a mustard seed. And then we have the “Great Big Show Stopper” but, it did not have that much of an effect on the lack of couage the Apostles held onto to!

One that first (Easter) Sunday - the women went to the tomb not knowing how they would get the stone rolled back to annoint a dead body in the beginning stages of decay (now that took guts to even think of doing that!) and they find: the stone rolled back and an angel telling them that “He Is Risen”. So, what do the gals do - they run to the Apostles to tell them … and what kind of response do these gals get - disbelief! The Apostles were apparently, not in a believing mood!

Finally, Peter and John go outside of locked room to go to the tomb - not sure about the remaining 9 Apostles, so my guess is that they just stayed in hiding. Peter and John see the empty tomb and believe - but, they still stayed in the locked room when these two Apostles returned to the group - out of fear of the Jews. So, even at this point, I guess you could really be wondering about just what kind of Faith in Christ did these Apostles have. Even though we only hear about the “doubting” Thomas - my guess is that there was enough doubt to go around with all the Eleven!

So, you want what the illerate Fisherman got, eh? Well, what he and the other 119 souls who were gathered in the Upper Room on that (first) Pentecost Sunday - was the Holy Spirit! Suddenly, all that cowardice which preceeded this REAL SHOW STOPPER was replaced with the Courage of God Himself. Acts Chapter Two is a marvelous of the Power of the Holy Spirit working in these all too human followers of Christ.

Now, the way I read your post, you are asking for what Peter got - and, that my friend, is the Holy Spirit. I honestly can not think of a more profound and beautiful prayer than to ask for God’s Holy Spirit to come into their lives. I want to join you in that prayer - and, I am confident that there are others on this list who will do the same - and pray that you will get the deepest desire of your heart - the Grace of God’s Holy Spirit to fill your life.

God bless

 

[TheAtheist]

Hi,
So, you want what the illerate Fisherman got, eh? Well, what he and the other 119 souls who were gathered in the Upper Room on that (first) Pentecost Sunday - was the Holy Spirit! Suddenly, all that cowardice which preceeded this REAL SHOW STOPPER was replaced with the Courage of God Himself. Acts Chapter Two is a marvelous of the Power of the Holy Spirit working in these all too human followers of Christ.

Sorry my friend, it has to be measurable and testable.

If the Holy Spirit showed up on my doorstep proclaiming the kingdom of god, the very first words out of my mouth would simply be:

"So, before i sign on. Will you solve that little niggling problem Descartes left us. How does spirit interact with corporeal reality?

Don’t skimp on the details, and if you can show me the mechanism for it i’d be much obliged. I mean the WHOLE mechanism for it. Start with the influence on sub-atomic particles and work your way upward to biological organisms.

Arm me with all of that and a method of repeatable demonstration that won’t fail in laboratory trials and i guarantee you there won’t be an atheist left on earth in the next decade."

---

Perhaps this will best clarify the difference in methodology.

It is often said that theology is “Faith Seeking Understanding.” You believe in order that you might understand.

Science reverses that, “I Understand It. Therefore I believe.”

 

[edwest2]

This is true, they did. They knew no better and, if they had suspicions, knew better then to voice them in an overwhelmingly religious culture where doubt was met with swift retribution.

Can you give me an example of ‘swift retribution’?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Actually, my cat can fly. Would you like to see the evidence? Well, one of my friends has seen it, honest.

Which is what? What’s your datum for truth? Tell me what this truth is, and how it affects scientific discovery. Show me how all the scientific theories to date, which don’t involve this ‘truth’ are wrong, and show me how they’ll be right when viewed in the context of this ‘truth.’

Example? You have an example where a scientific theory has been overturned purely using religious (name removed by moderator)ut, and that overturning has been overwhelmingly accepted by the red-faced scientists? Let’s hear it; I’m all ears.

We know as much as we can do, in the only way we can know: it works. It works consistently and objectively.

Are you talking about the Book of Revelation, or about personal subjective revelations? In either case - why believe it’s true?

You’re kidding! The scientific method doesn’t result in independent objective reasoning, but positing God’s involvement somehow does?

Thankfully this is so, otherwise the results would not be scientific, they would be guesswork. The long and the short of it is, science works without God.

Objective truth, eh? Which is what, exactly? How much time do we need to allow for the answer to become clear? What are your metrics?

I’m still not sure what your proposal is. Please would you propose an experiment, including all its parameters, methods, and expected results, that absolutely hinges upon this ‘truth’ you talk about (you’d better define that too so we can all be clear). Please also state exactly how this experiment is richer for the inclusion of this mysterious ‘truth,’ and how without it the experiment fails to provide an objective conclusion.

If you can do this, we have an interesting discussion on our hands. If you can’t, you’re just spouting rhetoric and I won’t waste any more of my time.

Your cat can fly? Honestly?

A Tale of Two Scientists & World Population

Steady State Theory is one theory overturned which had major negative implications for atheists.(they fought it tooth and nail) Remember this verse - “In the beginning…”? Theologians have been stating this for a very long time. Science just caught up.

Premise: God is responsible for the observable universe. So in the big picture we have to credit God even though science cringes. This is so intertwined it is difficult to unravel. However, we do not have to invoke God for all explanations and I have not proposed that. What I am claiming is that the truth must illuminate our reasoning of our observations. Don’t misstate what I am saying.

I am speaking of Revelation not the book of Revelation. Before we go on please read so you understand Revelation.
Meaning of revelation

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheAtheist,

“…measurable and testable…”,eh? Well, to paraphrase an old adage, while we are encouraged to hook our dreams to a star … I think you have chosen an anchor rusing at the bottom of the ocean… Descartes split between philosophy and science has never been healed - at least no to my knowledge. But, this does not mean what he said was valid! And, you are asking me to do all the work for you in this area … now, TA… you would not let that happen in your lab, would you…

Seriously, as it stands right now, “…measurable and testable…” do not hold up in known realities of science. No? Well, just what is ‘measurable’ with galaxies and star systems that are beyond our reach? While we think we know they are there because of gravational differences - that is hardly convincing. Too far away for you? Well, there is a closer example - prior to 1970 no one believed that abundant and differentiated life was possible at great depth and at temperatures in excess of 350 degrees. Behold the hydrothermal life forms (here’s a link:seasky.org/deep-sea/hydrothermal-vents.html )

Ultimately, it comes down to this: science’s job is to expand the body of natural knowledge using a set of tools that does its best to screen out for intentional bias. We go from a state of general knowledge - like when we all believed in the science of the Ptolemaic Model for how the universe worked (and that lasted until 1543 ) until Nicolaus Copernicus challenged the way we look at the celestial reality. Please do not misunderstand me - science and scientists are doing their bests. The real problem is if there is just a major difficulty with natural realities, how can you possible bet your eternal soul on such a system that tries to measure and test. By the way, I noticed you ingnored that part that put in … and another French scientist (Blaise Pascal ) would have told you that you are on the losing side of the odds I gave you! Remembrer: God is not natural - He is Supernatural and as such, both unmeasureable and untestable.

By the way, don’t look for the Holy Spirit at your doorstep - He is found in the humility of your heart. Pride and disdain - especially with a demonstrated flawed system you call science - has more serious limitations than I can identify. The very fact that you are on this list says that there is something else going on - and, my prayers to the Holy Spirit are intended to break that stone heart.

God bless

Sorry my friend, it has to be measurable and testable.

If the Holy Spirit showed up on my doorstep proclaiming the kingdom of god, the very first words out of my mouth would simply be:

"So, before i sign on. Will you solve that little niggling problem Descartes left us. How does spirit interact with corporeal reality?

Don’t skimp on the details, and if you can show me the mechanism for it i’d be much obliged. I mean the WHOLE mechanism for it. Start with the influence on sub-atomic particles and work your way upward to biological organisms.

Arm me with all of that and a method of repeatable demonstration that won’t fail in laboratory trials and i guarantee you there won’t be an atheist left on earth in the next decade."

---

Perhaps this will best clarify the difference in methodology.

It is often said that theology is “Faith Seeking Understanding.” You believe in order that you might understand.

Science reverses that, “I Understand It. Therefore I believe.”

 

[TheAtheist]

Hi,
By the way, don’t look for the Holy Spirit at your doorstep - He is found in the humility of your heart. Pride and disdain - especially with a demonstrated flawed system you call science - has more serious limitations than I can identify. The very fact that you are on this list says that there is something else going on - and, my prayers to the Holy Spirit are intended to break that stone heart.

Your not getting it. Really, your not. Buffalo at least seems to understand what it would take.

The Jesuits and Franciscans who travel in similar circles (since more often than not they’re the ones stuck holding the bag when it comes to doing science within your church) i’ve met get it.

Heck the Rabbinical association i’ve often spoken to gets it.

Moses didn’t go singing Yahweh’s praises until AFTER Mt. Sinai. After The Encounter.

Not a mystical encounter, not a logical proof with premises that can be shifted, not a hope in the human heart.

He got a booming voice out of the Heavens. Oh, and that really nifty ability to part the Red Sea.

Yahweh had to Demonstrate his power. Heck, since we’re running with the theory, he had to demonstrate it about 12 times before Egyptians even budged.

Key Phrase: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEMONSTRATION.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And not something that’s “iffy” either. Blatant unmistakable demonstration.

Some people are like John.

I’m proud to be a Thomas.

As for the saving of my immortal soul (if that in and of itself could be demonstrated to exist) - i’ve got Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohammed, some random pagan deities, the Great Goddess, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, and a whole host of others claiming the same deal.

As any good scientist would say: “All you have to do show yourself. Otherwise. Well sorry, just enough evidence.”

 

[buffalo]

Your not getting it. Really, your not. Buffalo at least seems to understand what it would take.

The Jesuits and Franciscans who travel in similar circles (since more often than not they’re the ones stuck holding the bag when it comes to doing science within your church) i’ve met get it.

Heck the Rabbinical association i’ve often spoken to gets it.

Moses didn’t go singing Yahweh’s praises until AFTER Mt. Sinai. After The Encounter.

Not a mystical encounter, not a logical proof with premises that can be shifted, not a hope in the human heart.

He got a booming voice out of the Heavens. Oh, and that really nifty ability to part the Red Sea.

Yahweh had to Demonstrate his power. Heck, since we’re running with the theory, he had to demonstrate it about 12 times before Egyptians even budged.

Key Phrase: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEMONSTRATION.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And not something that’s “iffy” either. Blatant unmistakable demonstration.

Some people are like John.

I’m proud to be a Thomas.

As for the saving of my immortal soul (if that in and of itself could be demonstrated to exist) - i’ve got Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohammed, some random pagan deities, the Great Goddess, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, and a whole host of others claiming the same deal.

As any good scientist would say: “All you have to do show yourself. Otherwise. Well sorry, just enough evidence.”

God continually shows himself. However, God does not subject himself to your lab table.

Catholics have a direct experience weekly during the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your not getting it. Really, your not. Buffalo at least seems to understand what it would take.

The Jesuits and Franciscans who travel in similar circles (since more often than not they’re the ones stuck holding the bag when it comes to doing science within your church) i’ve met get it.

Heck the Rabbinical association i’ve often spoken to gets it.

Moses didn’t go singing Yahweh’s praises until AFTER Mt. Sinai. After The Encounter.

Not a mystical encounter, not a logical proof with premises that can be shifted, not a hope in the human heart.

He got a booming voice out of the Heavens. Oh, and that really nifty ability to part the Red Sea.

Yahweh had to Demonstrate his power. Heck, since we’re running with the theory, he had to demonstrate it about 12 times before Egyptians even budged.

Key Phrase: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEMONSTRATION.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And not something that’s “iffy” either. Blatant unmistakable demonstration.

Some people are like John.

I’m proud to be a Thomas.

As for the saving of my immortal soul (if that in and of itself could be demonstrated to exist) - i’ve got Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohammed, some random pagan deities, the Great Goddess, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, and a whole host of others claiming the same deal.

As any good scientist would say: “All you have to do show yourself. Otherwise. Well sorry, just enough evidence.”

I encourage you to take a look at the thread, “Well, why?” in the Philosophy section of the forums. The discussion is about why we should believe in God without empirical evidence for His existence.

It is no one-sided religious self-affirmation thread, but a real debate. You should check it out.

 

[TheAtheist]

God continually shows himself. However, God does not subject himself to your lab table.

Catholics have a direct experience weekly during the Holy Eucharist.

Your direct experience of the Holy Eucharist pales in comparison to either directly witnessing a resurrection or the parting of a gigantic large body of water.

Remember Buffalo, your God didn’t initially set up shop just by handing out bread.

Even to get their attention, the Jewish God had to deal out the cards to the people of Israel. 10 plagues and a host of miracles.

And Jesus didn’t over-awe his disciples with argument and rhetorical skill. They weren’t just going to listen to him because he “talked well.”

Yargh, where’s St. Anastasia. I miss her already.

 

[buffalo]

Your direct experience of the Holy Eucharist pales in comparison to either directly witnessing a resurrection or the parting of a gigantic large body of water.

Remember Buffalo, your God didn’t initially set up shop just by handing out bread.

Even to get their attention, the Jewish God had to deal out the cards to the people of Israel. 10 plagues and a host of miracles.

And Jesus didn’t over-awe his disciples with argument and rhetorical skill. They weren’t just going to listen to him because he “talked well.”

Yargh, where’s St. Anastasia. I miss her already.

Just a reminder, whether you believe it or not He is your God too.

What is your point?

 

[TheAtheist]

Just a reminder, whether you believe it or not He is your God too.

What is your point?

eh? Yeah, so are Vishnu, Shiva, Yahweh, Laozi, Amaterasu, and the Founder of Scientology.

My point is simply thus:

For all the things i have cited, i have merely pointed out what it took, what needed to be done, in order to convince them that a God existed.

yet, you would have us, collectively, surrender the scientific method and not demand the same type of proof that those ancient people were privy to?

I don’t understand at all.

Your essentially penalizing us for asking the same thing.

Tom get’s away with it, we don’t?

Sorry, that’s not how some of us are hardwired.

 

[buffalo]

My point is simply thus:

For all the things i have cited, i have merely pointed out what it took, what needed to be done, in order to convince them that a God existed.

yet, you would have us, collectively, surrender the scientific method and not demand the same type of proof that those ancient people were privy to?

I don’t understand at all.

Your essentially penalizing us for asking the same thing.

I do not understand…

 

[TheAtheist]

I do not understand…

Nevermind Buffalo. nevermind.

I’m sure a New Atheist will come along and crash the thread eventually with the same old arguments against the same exact 5 arguments against the same epistemological objections. There will be arguing, and goal post moving, and it will end like every other thread ended.

:sigh:

 

[buffalo]

Nevermind Buffalo. nevermind.

I’m sure a New Atheist will come along and crash the thread eventually with the same old arguments against the same exact 5 arguments against the same epistemological objections. There will be arguing, and goal post moving, and it will end like every other thread ended.

:sigh:

I had to reread a few posts. I think I get it.

The men of old had an advantage that we do not have now in experiencing God?

You wish you too had that advantage?

 

[edwest2]

In a nutshell: “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” I heard this over 30 years ago.

Perhaps this will help:

holyspiritinteractive.net/features/eucharisticmiracles/miracles_lanciano.asp

God is aware of the depth of our disbelief.

God bless,
Ed

 

[twb1621]

Man’s scientific quests are at times driven more for illegitimate or negative reasons such as disproving the existance of God rather than those based on the admiration and further desire to know the Creator. We can come up with theories until the end of the solar system if that would be what the future holds but the continual and final proof that God created all things will remain in man’s inability to prove otherwise. God will never provide proof to mortal man of Himself. That would in itself interfere with man’s true free will to choose and abolish true expression of faith.

For a man of science to disbelieve in the existance of God without supportive evidence it would be nothing more than bias unfounded opinion, as it is no different than the same man denying the impossibilities and improbabilites in the statistics surrounding 1000 years of prior prophacy fulfilled in the Life of Christ. To deny statistical analysis would be to deny one of the very principles supporting scientific research and the substance of theory. No arm of science has ever been able to provide evidence contrary to the existance of God or in favor of the non-existance of God. Only the unfounded opinions of man generate such conclusions and that is in defiance of true science.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheAtheist,

You are soooooooooooooooo right! I don’t get it…! And, let me tell you what it is that I do not get…

I do not get the fact that I have given you arguments from logic - and you ignore them.

I do not get the fact that I have given you arguments from statistics - and you ignore them.

I do not get the fact that I have given you arguments from scientific fact - and you ignore them.

What you choose to do goes beyond petulant and seems to say, “You can’t make me believe becasue I don’t want to believe!” And, you’re right - I don’t get that either!

Trotting out the names of pagan dieties and false gods - as if to claim that they are all the same proves nothing. They are only all the same because you have apparently placed them all together. But, there is a mighty difference you have freely chosen to ignore. God not only made the world and everything else - He so loved the world that He sent His Only Begotten Son to die for our sins. I realize this goes way beyond a proof of God’s existance, but, this is something you really should consider.

I have done the best that I can do… I really can not think of anything else to add. Naturally, this is an issue where you are here on CAF and you are expected to come up with more than “DEMONSTRATE”. Multiple efforts have be made by many to show that Christ DEMONSTRATED that He is God, that He performed miracles and rose from the dead. The first 300 years of Christianity are filled with men, women and children who chose death so they could DEMONSTRATE their faith in God. My prayers to the Holy Spirit are there - and I am sure the prayers of others for you are there, too. Quite honeslty, it is up to you to freely choose to act with the Grace of God - so you can get it!

Oh, by the way - if you are ‘proud’ to be a Thomas, recall that in John 20:27 Christ told Thomas not to persist in his unbelief - and those who have not seen and yet believed are blessed. You have a way to go to live up to the way Thomas conducted himself.

God bless

Your not getting it. Really, your not. Buffalo at least seems to understand what it would take.

The Jesuits and Franciscans who travel in similar circles (since more often than not they’re the ones stuck holding the bag when it comes to doing science within your church) i’ve met get it.

Heck the Rabbinical association i’ve often spoken to gets it.

Moses didn’t go singing Yahweh’s praises until AFTER Mt. Sinai. After The Encounter.

Not a mystical encounter, not a logical proof with premises that can be shifted, not a hope in the human heart.

He got a booming voice out of the Heavens. Oh, and that really nifty ability to part the Red Sea.

Yahweh had to Demonstrate his power. Heck, since we’re running with the theory, he had to demonstrate it about 12 times before Egyptians even budged.

Key Phrase: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEMONSTRATION.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And not something that’s “iffy” either. Blatant unmistakable demonstration.

Some people are like John.

I’m proud to be a Thomas.

As for the saving of my immortal soul (if that in and of itself could be demonstrated to exist) - i’ve got Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohammed, some random pagan deities, the Great Goddess, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, and a whole host of others claiming the same deal.

As any good scientist would say: “All you have to do show yourself. Otherwise. Well sorry, just enough evidence.”

 

[edwest2]

There is Fatima and Lourdes. Catholics around the world are waiting for two miracles to be attributed to Pope John Paul II.

In the meantime, especially on the internet, a nonscientific opinion culture has been built to answer an old question. What is the better way of knowing? Science or religion? There is a spectrum of answers, not just one. On one hand, there are those who are deeply religious and simply use the scientific approach to answer questions and solve problems, on the opposite are those who look at science and think, finally, we are free of that old superstition and we will build our lives around this. Unfortunately, even good scientists combine a nonscientific worldview with good science. They come to conclusions that they cannot demonstrate using science. They want others to believe them as well. The Church is concerned about this and recognizes that a nonscientific belief has overlaid legitimate science. The current problem that the Church is undertaking to solve is disentangling this worldview(s) from good science.

This problem has other consequences, but what should be realized is that good science can pose questions and consider problems, and even offer ways to solve problems. As human beings, we need to be watchful that the proposed solutions do not harm the innocent in the process.

What message did Samuel Morse send over his new telegraph? “What hath God wrought?”

God bless,
Ed

 

[TheAtheist]

What you choose to do goes beyond petulant and seems to say, “You can’t make me believe becasue I don’t want to believe!” And, you’re right - I don’t get that either!

I had to answer this one. Because frankly this is the absolute gravest insult that be given to me.

In my lifetime, i have stood shoulder to shoulder with some of the best academic minds who just happen to share your faith and belief structure.

Why do you think I praise Franciscan and Jesuit learning?

From Fordham, to Notre Dame, to Georgetown. Not ONCE. NOT ONCE have they EVER excused me of what you just stated. Ever.

Because you have just grouped me in with the New Atheists.

If that’s how you truly perceive the world, then by all means - enjoy the flood that’s coming. Enjoy what i like to call the Atheistic version of a Radical Christian. I’m sure you’ll all get along regurgitating the same exact arguments again and again and again and again.

I can take comfort at the very least, that those I call colleagues and friends (who happen to adhere to the same religious organization as you do) are far more balanced in their assessments.

But then again, that’s always been the problem with the Catholic Church hasn’t it?

Ask a member of Opus Dei about something, you’ll get one answer.

Ask a Jesuit, you just might get another.