The Absurdity of Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A very derogatory statement to make of other people about whom I’d assume have as strong a faith as do you.
Sorry if it came across that way; my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I certainly wasn’t comparing my personal faith with anyone.

I’ll paraphrase: if you are going to be a Christian, Catholicism is one of the denominations that will ask the most from you.
 
If you grow up in a Hindu society being taught about the Hindu faith, you will automatically decide whether the information you are being given is true or not. You cannot, if you are being intellectually honest, choose to believe or not. But then, you will be unaware of other belief systems. If you are taught about two faiths, Hinduism and Christianity you will automatically decide if one is true or both are false. As you said, you choose the direction you want to take. Which by definition, reduces the amount of knowledge available. Which is not a criticism. We’re all in the same boat. We can only work with what we are given.
I know quite a bit about Hinduism and I’m pretty sure in the case you describe above, I would have been reading about Christianity. It’s important to broaden one’s exposure to different cultures. It opens our eyes to what it means to be human, who we are.

And, this is at the very least of it. Religions go beyond what binds societies, reaching to the roots of our primary relationship which is with the Ground of our being. It is not so much a matter of true or false here, as they are all expressions of a connectedness to the Divine. Also, it is more than knowledge, but rather has to do with how one conducts one life.

Confession, founded on personal human experience, I find more convincing than hypotheticals. So, looking back to when I realized that nothing I had learned in school could explain my existence, what was most real, I recall coming to understand that what I had been doing was like expecting Pi to be a whole number. Life was clearly irrational from my perspective of what constituted the structure of the world. But, left dissatisfied with that answer I sought it elsewhere. Finding Zen, and then parking myself in eastern thought, punctuated by the indisputable arguments of CS Lewis, for about half a century, I adopted an approach to life which place the eternal above the transience and illusoriness of the mundane. For me religion was a personal affair, between God and myself. When my niece married a Hindu fellow, I realized I had been seeking Him at a distance - the most intimate of relationships, totally intellectualized. The mantras, symbols and teachings were brought to life. It was like going to the Holy land and seeing all the places you had read about. I think that was part of the ongoing deepening of what is termed growing in Christ. We are all in this together, we participate in rather than observe the Beatific Vision. I suppose the clincher to committing myself to the church was when a close friend asked me what I thought constituted a soul. I went on for a long time, in my mind long after the person had been satisfied with my response. It all sounded phony as I said and thought it because the reality was right there in front of me and I had absolutely nothing that could reach it. Sort of like noticing that you’ve been chewing on straw, in the presence of bread.

What I am trying to say is that belief is a a light illuminating the journey that is one’s faith. One chooses the path. Faith is like seeds scattered by a generous sower everywhere. They fall where they can be trampled, on rocks, in brambles and thickets and in fertile soil, which represent the choices we make when we receive God’s graces. It is always our choice wherever we are along the path.
 
And it seems that Catholicism has taken the biggest hit, around 10% of Catholics changing or losing their faith.
Do you have a source for this statistic? I’m surprise the percent is not a good deal higher, and I believe it is since most Catholics either don’t even know they are losing their faith, or would be reluctant to admit it.

The devil is always very busy, especially at confusing us about God.
 
Probably because Catholicism, unlike many other brands of Christianity, for example, actually makes demands of its members.
It does and it doesn’t. In theory it makes many more demands, and this fact can be detected just by reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But Catholic would only know this if they are properly catechized. This is difficult because the number of competent catechists, priests, and Catholic educators is dwindling. The entire media and public academia is dedicated to ridiculing Catholics, and the ridicule is especially effective at diminishing the young Catholic’s image of himself, especially if he feels the need to be accepted as a fellow traveler in life with the very people who ridicule his faith.
 
I must admit to being surprised at this:

Combined with the 44% of the public that currently espouses a religion different than their childhood faith, this means that roughly half of the U.S. adult population has changed religion at some point in their life. pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/

And it seems that Catholicism has taken the biggest hit, around 10% of Catholics changing or losing their faith.
This is because Catholicism is runs counter to relativism.
The Catholic Church might be the last that holds to objective morality, in other words a standard of morality determined outside one’s self rather than by the individual.

It is hard. So it is no surprise that people leave.
You should understand something:

As Christians, we expect this.
 
Do you have a source for this statistic? I’m surprise the percent is not a good deal higher, and I believe it is since most Catholics either don’t even know they are losing their faith, or would be reluctant to admit it.
There’s a link in the post.
 
Do not confuse “unconscious” with the “subconscious”, the workings of the “grey cells” with the “white cells”.

You can choose to explore a hypothesis, that is obviously true. But your feelings, preferences, tastes, beliefs are not subject to volitional control.
In that case your scientific hypotheses and theories are also not subject to volitional control 😉
 
If this is true, why are there so many conversions between religions?
I don’t think he is trying to argue that truth is reducible to convention, just that the first things we learn are through conventions.

Just because things are conventions doesn’t mean that don’t have a rational basis too.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
It does and it doesn’t. In theory it makes many more demands, and this fact can be detected just by reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But Catholic would only know this if they are properly catechized. This is difficult because the number of competent catechists, priests, and Catholic educators is dwindling. The entire media and public academia is dedicated to ridiculing Catholics, and the ridicule is especially effective at diminishing the young Catholic’s image of himself, especially if he feels the need to be accepted as a fellow traveler in life with the very people who ridicule his faith.
True - but I would add that the majority of Catholics (it seems) know about contraception, confession, and a few other teachings that many find difficult.

Pax!
 
You can choose to explore a hypothesis, that is obviously true. But your feelings, preferences, tastes, beliefs are not subject to volitional control.
We can control our feelings, preferences, and tastes indirectly, by changing our habits and perspective. This doesn’t always work, but it’s not impossible, and I personally, and many others, have done it.

Belief is a vague word, and by some definitions beliefs are by definition volitional.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
There’s a link in the post.
Thanks. I tried to get through the article but it just seemed to go on forever.

Perhaps what I did not see was addressed later in the article, but as far as I got there seemed to be more interest in documenting people who had left the Church rather than those who had joined. Also did not notice any statistic on Protestants and atheists who had joined.

This, for sure, is not notable as an age of belief despite the surfacing today of more need and reasons to believe than ever before.

The devil is in the details. 🤷
 
Perhaps what I did not see was addressed later in the article, but as far as I got there seemed to be more interest in documenting people who had left the Church rather than those who had joined. Also did not notice any statistic on Protestants and atheists who had joined.
According to the article most protestants move from one protestant religion to another with reasons including life changes (including moving to an area where some other denomination is more common) or concerns of hypocrisy or people being judgemental.

Atheist are not really called out in the numbers. They do talk about an unaffiliated group, but a person not affiliated with any religion isn’t necessarily an atheist and may still hold religious beliefs.
 
Hello all. Sorry but on weekends I never check this forum. Heck I barely surf the internet.
 
…The so called atheist theories are built on the evidence.
Do you mean lack of evidence?

As humans, theists and atheists use faith, doubt and reason to arrive at truth. We differ in the order we apply the three.

The theist begins with faith in God, moves to doubt to test the notion, and resolves with reason.

The atheist begins with doubt, moves to reason to prove a negative, and relies on faith in the power of his reason to discover truth.

Note that the theist’s method is the Socratic method and the common sense method that one lives one’s life. Socrates allows his interlocutor to express a proposition, doubts or questions the proposer, and resolves the proposition with reason. In life, without human faith in those who preceded us (parents, teachers), we would have no framework to doubt.

The atheist’s method is the scientific method – assumes nothing, experiments or observes to produce data and uses reason to order the data. The scientist has faith in the scientific method, a method that cannot prove itself as valid.
 
Do you mean lack of evidence?

As humans, theists and atheists use faith, doubt and reason to arrive at truth. We differ in the order we apply the three.

The theist begins with faith in God, moves to doubt to test the notion, and resolves with reason.

The atheist begins with doubt, moves to reason to prove a negative, and relies on faith in the power of his reason to discover truth.

Note that the theist’s method is the Socratic method and the common sense method that one lives one’s life. Socrates allows his interlocutor to express a proposition, doubts or questions the proposer, and resolves the proposition with reason. In life, without human faith in those who preceded us (parents, teachers), we would have no framework to doubt.

The atheist’s method is the scientific method – assumes nothing, experiments or observes to produce data and uses reason to order the data. The scientist has faith in the scientific method, a method that cannot prove itself as valid.
No no no. A scientist doesn’t have “faith” in the scientific method.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Dear goodness there is a lot of misinformation around here.
 
No no no. A scientist doesn’t have “faith” in the scientific method.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Dear goodness there is a lot of misinformation around here.
Are you saying we don’t have to trust the scientific method? I think all that is being said is that the scientific method has assumptions that it itself cannot demonstrate.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Are you saying we don’t have to trust the scientific method? I think all that is being said is that the scientific method has assumptions that it itself cannot demonstrate.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
There is a difference between trust and faith. If I had a spouse I would have trust in that person to be honest with me in what they do. I don’t have faith in them. What assumptions does it have and where did you find them?
 
There is a difference between trust and faith. If I had a spouse I would have trust in that person to be honest with me in what they do. I don’t have faith in them. What assumptions does it have and where did you find them?
The scientific methods assume that there is an object and that the senses are reliable in some way, among other things.

What is faith?

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top