The most baffling mystery of all

[R_Daneel]

It pops up every time God’s supposed benevolence is discussed. The atheists bring up some questions about it, and the believers will start a barrage of their rationalizations. A few examples: God outsources his helping hand to humans, who are mostly unequipped to handle the problem or God does not want to reveal his existence, because such revelation would make it harder not to believe in him, or maybe why should God “pamper” us? Lots of other nonsensical answers. None are rational, of course.

My amazement stems from their utmost reluctance to admit: “they believe in God’s benevolence on blind faith, they need no evidence for it”. Why do they try so desperately create a rational basis for their belief? After all Jesus himself endorses blind faith when he says: “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. This is the quintessential blind faith. Are they somehow secretly “ashamed” of their blind faith? Why would they shun Jesus’s words? Do they secretly believe that (blind) faith is somehow “lower” than cold, hard reason?

They should have their answer ready, wearing it proudly as a badge of honor: “we have our (blind) faith, we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary - as Jesus endorsed”. Personally, I would find such an answer worthy of respect. Not intellectual respect, mind you, but respect for their honesty nonetheless. It would be much more praiseworthy to have your belief, and stick to it, than coming up with feeble rationalizations, which would not convince a child. Just say: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. This advice comes free of charge. Use it.

 

[Magnanimity]

It pops up every time God’s supposed benevolence is discussed. The atheists bring up some questions about it, and the believers will start a barrage of their rationalizations. A few examples: God outsources his helping hand to humans, who are mostly unequipped to handle the problem…

Participation in some good (eg, some benevolent act or another) is unlikely to ever be countered with, “But I’m not properly equipped to handle the problem!” And this is true irrespective of religious commitments. Let us say, for example, that you buy into Peter Singer’s basic argument that we all have a moral duty to help those in need if it is within our means to do so. I certainly find his argument to be persuasive, and I hope that, even if you’ve never read it in full, you could still accept his conclusion. Now, Singer likes to appeal to ready examples like poverty. So, my question to you would be, what are you going to say to Peter Singer? “I’m sorry, but the problem of global poverty is too big for someone like me to make a significant difference. I’m not ‘equipped.’ to help” ?!

or God does not want to reveal his existence, because such revelation would make it harder not to believe in him…,

If one maintains along with St Thomas Aquinas, as I do, that the existence of God, while self-evident in itself, is not necessarily self-evident to ‘us,’ this doesn’t amount to much of an objection. This also gets into the theological virtue of faith, but it doesn’t seem, from your post here, that you’ve thought much about or are very interested in exploring this.

My amazement stems from their utmost reluctance to admit: “they believe in God’s benevolence on blind faith, they need no evidence for it”. Why do they try so desperately create a rational basis for their belief?

After all Jesus himself endorses blind faith when he says: “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. This is the quintessential blind faith. Are they somehow secretly “ashamed” of their blind faith? Why would they shun Jesus’s words? Do they secretly believe that (blind) faith is somehow “lower” than cold, hard reason?

Catholics, of all Christians, are the least likely to agree with you on any charge of “blind faith.” I cannot think of any religion with a more robust intellectual history than that of Catholicism. Can you? Augustine, Aquinas, Newman…all intellectual giants firmly committed to the unity of faith and reason within their religious understanding. All I can think that you are doing here in this paragraph is projecting your own belief onto the religion, all historical evidence to the contrary, and then criticizing that projection.

Second, all beliefs must have a rational basis, whether or not those beliefs are regarding religion. It would be irrational to hold otherwise, I would think. Somewhere in the ballpark of 99.99% of everything you believe about, say, the natural sciences, is epistemically grounded in someone’s testimony. That is, they are “testimonially grounded beliefs,” as you not only didn’t conduct the experiments yourself, but you didn’t directly perceive those experiments either. But, it doesn’t follow from this fact that you are not rational in the beliefs you hold about various scientific matters. Part of your rationality in this area would be generated by the “peer review” process of scientific journals, the success of science in extending our knowledge of the natural world, the reputable nature of various journals you read from, etc. So, you hold beliefs regarding science and they are rationally based (whether or not they’re true beliefs). Now, without equating scientific and religious beliefs or reducing religious beliefs down to the level of the natural world, I’d like to know on what basis you make the charge of ‘blind faith.’

Third, I separate your comments above on Jesus’ words because I wonder what your reference is. Are you referring to Christ’s words to Thomas in the gospel of John, chapter 20? There are not a few counter examples, from the words of Christ himself, to your argument here. There’s his response to the disciples of John the Baptist, there are his words to his own disciples in John 14, etc. But, we need a better idea of whether or not you’re referring to an actual passage from the sacred texts before you can be engaged here.

They should have their answer ready, wearing it proudly as a badge of honor: “we have our (blind) faith, we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary - as Jesus endorsed”.

The above is, as I hope you plainly see, a different charge from what you allege above. To believe in something without evidence is what most people understand ‘blind faith’ to be. Not “faith,” but blind faith. But to believe in something despite evidence to the contrary would be to go against reason. It would be irrational. So, which is it here? Are you making the weaker (blind faith) or stronger (against reason) allegation?

It seems that this post is little more than a rant, but perhaps we’ll have some interesting exchange on my reply here, which is also, as yours, free of charge.

 

[Joe_5859]

Faith is not blind. Not every Catholic has the most logical, rational explanation for our beliefs because we’re not all gifted philosophers and/or theologians. If you’re looking for well-reasoned articulations of the necessity of God’s benevolence, I would recommend turning to Aquinas or Anselm, not us posters at CAF. The first part of Aquinas’ Summa or else Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion would be a good place to start.

It would be a good idea to check out JPII’s Faith and Reason as well to help you understand how these two things are intimately tied together for us Catholics.

 

[GEddie]

If one maintains along with St Thomas Aquinas, as I do, that the existence of God, while self-evident in itself, is not necessarily self-evident to ‘us,’ this doesn’t amount to much of an objection.

Please explain.

Self-evident and at the same time not self evident? Does this look like contradiction only to us nonphilosophers?

Either something is self-evident or it’s not.

Given that 90 percent of readers on this sytem are nonphilosophers— it doth behoove you to explain yourself.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[GEddie]

They should have their answer ready, wearing it proudly as a badge of honor: “we have our (blind) faith,** we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary -** as Jesus endorsed”.

What evidence to the contrary?

That human beings die? That poverty exists? That human beings and their collectives often can’t get along?

With all due respect, Christian philosphers have dealt with these issues far longer than you have, and have answered all of these and other “evidences.”

If one accepts that happiness in our known world is not the goal of human life, these are no objections.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Magnanimity]

Please explain.

Self-evident and at the same time not self evident? Does this look like contradiction only to us nonphilosophers?

Either something is self-evident or it’s not.

Given that 90 percent of readers on this sytem are nonphilosophers— it doth behoove you to explain yourself.

Ok, my apologies. Please see the rather lengthy quote below for St Thomas’ explanation. To be a contradiction in this way, something must be asserted and denied in the same sense, but “self-evident” is here applied in two separate senses: “in itself” as opposed to “to us.” But please read the quote below and follow the link to see what you think for yourself.

“I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: “Whether all that is, is good”), “that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.” (source: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

 

[R_Daneel]

Participation in some good (eg, some benevolent act or another) is unlikely to ever be countered with, “But I’m not properly equipped to handle the problem!” And this is true irrespective of religious commitments. Let us say, for example, that you buy into Peter Singer’s basic argument that we all have a moral duty to help those in need if it is within our means to do so. I certainly find his argument to be persuasive, and I hope that, even if you’ve never read it in full, you could still accept his conclusion. Now, Singer likes to appeal to ready examples like poverty. So, my question to you would be, what are you going to say to Peter Singer? “I’m sorry, but the problem of global poverty is too big for someone like me to make a significant difference. I’m not ‘equipped.’ to help” ?!

I agree and I do help poverty within my means. If I would not do so, you would be quite all right to call me a selfish person, and also a hypocrite.

If one maintains along with St Thomas Aquinas, as I do, that the existence of God, while self-evident in itself, is not necessarily self-evident to ‘us,’ this doesn’t amount to much of an objection. This also gets into the theological virtue of faith, but it doesn’t seem, from your post here, that you’ve thought much about or are very interested in exploring this.

Unfortunately I don’t buy the “self-evident in itself”. If something is not self-evident to us (to someone), then it is not self-evident. Some complicated mathematical proof might be self-evident to a highly trained mathematician, but it is not self-evident to a layperson. You are also correct, unsupported faith carries no weight for me. If the belief (faith) can be supported to some degree in a rational manner, that would be a different issue.

Catholics, of all Christians, are the least likely to agree with you on any charge of “blind faith.”

I am sure about that. The difference is “what” constitutes blind faith? This is where the disagreement will happen.

Second, all beliefs must have a rational basis, whether or not those beliefs are regarding religion. It would be irrational to hold otherwise, I would think.

If you permit me a little change: “all beliefs SHOULD have a rational basis”.

Somewhere in the ballpark of 99.99% of everything you believe about, say, the natural sciences, is epistemically grounded in someone’s testimony.

Correct. Now, can you tell me the fundamental difference between the testimonial evidence of science and religion? Please do so, because it is very important.

Now, without equating scientific and religious beliefs or reducing religious beliefs down to the level of the natural world, I’d like to know on what basis you make the charge of 'blind faith.'think.

I don’t call the religious faith - in toto - blind, only certain parts of it, especially the assertion that God is benevolent. If you look around the world, can you quote me something fully rational (no theological underpinning) to support this? If you would look at the world with the skeptic’s eye, you see millions of instances when God could have intervened, or even better, prevented? The lack of such intervention is the evidence to the contrary. To keep on believing in God’s benevolence in the face of all the evidence to the contrary - does constitute “blind faith”.

Third, I separate your comments above on Jesus’ words because I wonder what your reference is. Are you referring to Christ’s words to Thomas in the gospel of John, chapter 20? There are not a few counter examples, from the words of Christ himself, to your argument here. There’s his response to the disciples of John the Baptist, there are his words to his own disciples in John 14, etc. But, we need a better idea of whether or not you’re referring to an actual passage from the sacred texts before you can be engaged here.

Yes, John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

The above is, as I hope you plainly see, a different charge from what you allege above. To believe in something without evidence is what most people understand ‘blind faith’ to be. Not “faith,” but blind faith. But to believe in something despite evidence to the contrary would be to go against reason. It would be irrational. So, which is it here? Are you making the weaker (blind faith) or stronger (against reason) allegation?

In the spirit of what I said above, I am making the stronger charge. But! I am willing to change my mind, if some fully rational and secular explanation comes around. There is a good “doctrine”: always argue on your opponent’s playing field. If you would happen to argue with a Protestant, argue on the basis of Sola Scriptura, because that is the only field he would accept as valid. If you happen to argue with an atheist, argue in a fully secular manner. Don’t bring up the Bible, don’t bring up the Cathecism, because those “playing” fields are not acceptable. However, a good, secular argument will help you to convince your opponent.

 

[R_Daneel]

If one accepts that happiness in our known world is not the goal of human life, these are no objections.

Indeed, but why would an atheist accept it? For an atheist that is an irrational assumption.

 

[Crown_of_Thorns]

It should be pointed out though, that faith isn’t blind, faith is quite reasonable. “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” Fides et Ration (On Faith and Reason).

As Catholics we should never give the impression that we believe blindly in things which are patently absurd - that is the caricature of Catholics, which is untrue and shouldn’t be encouraged. It is perfectly sensible for Christians to think about answers to various moral problems in the light of faith, even if the answers aren’t perfect.

 

[tonyrey]

It pops up every time God’s supposed benevolence is discussed. The atheists bring up some questions about it, and the believers will start a barrage of their rationalizations.

Of course atheists never start a barrage of their rationalizations… In the forefront is their rationalization that the power to rationalize is derived from that which is irrational!

A few examples: God outsources his helping hand to humans, who are mostly unequipped to handle the problem or God does not want to reveal his existence, because such revelation would make it harder not to believe in him, or maybe why should God “pamper” us? Lots of other nonsensical answers. None are rational, of course.

An irrational distortion of the facts by a specialist in nonsensical “answers”, e.g. “What’s wrong with being God’s robots?”…The simple truth is that this particular atheist has donned a mantle of infallibility and has absolute proof that God does not exist - which of course he cannot produce! For him there is either too much evidence or there is not enough… I wonder exactly how much is required…

My amazement stems from their utmost reluctance to admit: “they believe in God’s benevolence on blind faith, they need no evidence for it”. Why do they try so desperately create a rational basis for their belief?

“Methinks he pleadeth too much.” Why are you trying so desperately with a flurry of questions on this forum to create a rational basis for your disbelief? It is always far easier to attack than to defend. How about expounding your “explanation” of reality and exposing it for examination?

After all Jesus himself endorses blind faith when he says: “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”.

Another irrational distortion of the facts! It is not blind faith that is being endorsed because Jesus had already given ample evidence to all those who have an open mind - unlike others whose intellectual pride blinds them to the truth… The truth shines by its own light but none are so **blind **as those who will not see…

This is the quintessential blind faith. Are they somehow secretly “ashamed” of their blind faith? Why would they shun Jesus’s words? Do they secretly believe that (blind) faith is somehow “lower” than cold, hard reason?

Cold, hard unreason accepts the myth that Chance, the blind Goddess, is the Supreme Reality. Quintessential **blind **faith is revealed in the rejection of reason, value and purpose in favour of that which is **devoid **of reason, value and purpose. It is ironic that those who claim to be highly rational also claim that rationality is rooted in irrational processes.

They should have their answer ready, wearing it proudly as a badge of honor: “we have our (blind) faith, we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary - as Jesus endorsed”. Personally, I would find such an answer worthy of respect. Not intellectual respect, mind you, but respect for their honesty nonetheless.

You should wear proudly your badge of dishonour for constantly attempting to undermine the faith of others and desecrate their most cherished beliefs and values. Your respect for their honesty conceals contempt for what you superstitiously regard as their superstition. In reality the supreme superstition is yours: to attribute to inanimate matter the magical power to conjure up truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love for no reason or purpose whatsoever…

It would be much more praiseworthy to have your belief, and stick to it, than coming up with feeble rationalizations, which would not convince a child. Just say: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. This advice comes free of charge. Use it.

A child can recognise the value and meaning of life but you are singularly deficient in that respect - if we are to judge by your unbalanced remarks about the horrors of existence in this world…
You are very welcome to have some advice in return - completely free of charge. We all get exactly what we deserve. You believe in nothing but atomic particles. So you know what to expect…

 

[rfulks]

It pops up every time God’s supposed benevolence is discussed. The atheists bring up some questions about it, and the believers will start a barrage of their rationalizations. A few examples: God outsources his helping hand to humans, who are mostly unequipped to handle the problem or God does not want to reveal his existence, because such revelation would make it harder not to believe in him, or maybe why should God “pamper” us? Lots of other nonsensical answers. None are rational, of course.

My amazement stems from their utmost reluctance to admit: “they believe in God’s benevolence on blind faith, they need no evidence for it”. Why do they try so desperately create a rational basis for their belief? After all Jesus himself endorses blind faith when he says: “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. This is the quintessential blind faith. Are they somehow secretly “ashamed” of their blind faith? Why would they shun Jesus’s words? Do they secretly believe that (blind) faith is somehow “lower” than cold, hard reason?

They should have their answer ready, wearing it proudly as a badge of honor: “we have our (blind) faith, we believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary - as Jesus endorsed”. Personally, I would find such an answer worthy of respect. Not intellectual respect, mind you, but respect for their honesty nonetheless. It would be much more praiseworthy to have your belief, and stick to it, than coming up with feeble rationalizations, which would not convince a child. Just say: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. This advice comes free of charge. Use it.

I pretty much agree with this. In another post, I outlined a few concerns regarding my Catholic faith which arose from reading Night - regarding the horrific inequity of the world and the fact that we can’t choose who we become, and so on. I didn’t see any satisfactory answers to my concerns, and I doubt there are any. But I think to worry too much about logical conundrums when dealing with matters of faith is to confuse apples with oranges. For every logical argument made to support the idea of God or Heaven, etc, there is an argument at least as good against the idea. In the end we either choose to take the leap of faith or we do not. When I apply cold, detached, objective analysis to matters of faith, I usually come up pretty disappointed. However, I am still Catholic. Retaining that faith, however weak it is, still provides me with a certain amount of meaning or subjective truth in my life. I am sure my faith is never going to be as strong as it was when I was an unquestioning sixth grader, and I can even imagine losing my faith entirely if something tragic was to happen to my family, say. But for now, going to Mass weekly, praying with my children, observing the rules of Lent, etc, just feels right to me, so I do it, even if I can’t explain why.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I don’t call the religious faith - in toto - blind, only certain parts of it, especially the assertion that God is benevolent. If you look around the world, can you quote me something fully rational (no theological underpinning) to support this? If you would look at the world with the skeptic’s eye, you see millions of instances when God could have intervened, or even better, prevented? The lack of such intervention is the evidence to the contrary. To keep on believing in God’s benevolence in the face of all the evidence to the contrary - does constitute “blind faith”.

If God intervened in all these tragic instances on earth of which we are all familiar, the big ones and the small ones, then you R Daneel and I would simply be automatons merely acting or inacting based on whether God will intervene to protect us from suffering, which He would per your belief that a bevolent God would do this. That was not God’s intention. He gave us Free Will, to choose between helping or hurting - such free will could not exist in a universe where one was assured of God’s help in “millions of instances” as you say to stop suffering. For that matter, no one but God knows when he intervened in history, perhaps preventing World War Three in the last century. God in His Love gave the gift of free will to us - to choose between good and evil (obviously people like Hitler and Stalin chose evil). With Free Will, comes the possibility of evil being done by some men and women. But we have free will. No mean feat. We can choose for good.

I am more interested in seeing how you, appearing an agnostic or atheist, feel fit in the absence of a good God, to be able to differentiate between good and bad. Many atheists do not even believe in the good/bad dynamic, or morality. R Daneel, where do you think you got your moral compass to see what is evil and what is good?

God put us on Earth temporarily. We are made for the Afterlife. As St. Paul said, this life on Earth is like a woman going through birth pains. When the baby is finally born and we pass onto the next world, all that pain is forgotten. In the Christian world, suffering obviously has a place; God Himself not being spared in Jesus’ Crucifixion. I’m still interested in hearing where in the absence of God you can have a moral compass to differentiate between good and evil. You obviously see evil. Where do you think this knowledge of natural law and morality come from?

 

[tonyrey]

I pretty much agree with this. In another post, I outlined a few concerns regarding my Catholic faith which arose from reading Night - regarding the horrific inequity of the world and the fact that we can’t choose who we become, and so on. I didn’t see any satisfactory answers to my concerns, and I doubt there are any.

You haven’t explained how the horrific inequity of the world could be rectified… Do you think a simple fiat by God would suffice? If so you underestimate the complexity of life and the extent to which we are responsible for what happens in this world.
Do you think we have no responsibility whatsoever for what we become? Are all the legal systems of the world based on a false assumption?

But I think to worry too much about logical conundrums when dealing with matters of faith is to confuse apples with oranges. For every logical argument made to support the idea of God or Heaven, etc, there is an argument at least as good against the idea.

How do you reach that conclusion? Have you specialised in the subject? Is it likely that the evidence is equally balanced?

In the end we either choose to take the leap of faith or we do not. When I apply cold, detached, objective analysis to matters of faith, I usually come up pretty disappointed.

Do you think you would be less disappointed if you leapt into total scepticism? On what is your detached analysis based? What assumptions do you make? What are your expectations? (I am not asking these questions to be awkward but to clarify your thoughts.)

However, I am still Catholic. Retaining that faith, however weak it is, still provides me with a certain amount of meaning or subjective truth in my life.

Do you think the meaning and truth of Catholicism are **entirely **subjective? How did meaning and truth originate?

I am sure my faith is never going to be as strong as it was when I was an unquestioning sixth grader, and I can even imagine losing my faith entirely if something tragic was to happen to my family, say.

If your questions are answered your faith will be unassailable! If you expect your faith to give you security in this world it is likely to be shattered!
But for now, going to Mass weekly, praying with my children, observing the rules of Lent, etc, just feels right to me, so I do it, even if I can’t explain why.
“Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas.” - Pascal
(The heart has its reasons that reason is not aware of…)

A person who never prays is in a spiritual desert…

 

[tonyrey]

How did benevolence originate? That is more to the point!

 

[LilyM]

Unfortunately I don’t buy the “self-evident in itself”. If something is not self-evident to us (to someone), then it is not self-evident. Some complicated mathematical proof might be self-evident to a highly trained mathematician, but it is not self-evident to a layperson. You are also correct, unsupported faith carries no weight for me. If the belief (faith) can be supported to some degree in a rational manner, that would be a different issue.

Well, God is surely a ‘someone’ to whom His own existence can be self-evident, as mine would be to me even if I lived completely isolated from everyone else who might otherwise come to know it. So are the saints and angels who surround Him ‘someones’ to whom His existence can be self-evident - or are you suggesting that knowledge is only knowledge when possessed by presently-living humans?

You’re also discounting the possibility that God’s existence is indeed self-evident but also beyond our present knowledge - like the theory of relativity was before Einstein came along.

 

[GEddie]

Indeed, but why would an atheist accept it? For an atheist that is an irrational assumption.

Indeed, and I do not suggest that you should. Only that what you take to be “evidence against” God is in fact no such thing.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rfulks]

You haven’t explained how the horrific inequity of the world could be rectified… Do you think a simple fiat by God would suffice? If so you underestimate the complexity of life and the extent to which we are responsible for what happens in this world.
Do you think we have no responsibility whatsoever for what we become? Are all the legal systems of the world based on a false assumption?

How do you reach that conclusion? Have you specialised in the subject? Is it likely that the evidence is equally balanced?
Do you think you would be less disappointed if you leapt into total scepticism? On what is your detached analysis based? What assumptions do you make? What are your expectations? (I am not asking these questions to be awkward but to clarify your thoughts.)

Do you think the meaning and truth of Catholicism are **entirely **subjective? How did meaning and truth originate?

If your questions are answered your faith will be unassailable! If you expect your faith to give you security in this world it is likely to be shattered!
But for now, going to Mass weekly, praying with my children, observing the rules of Lent, etc, just feels right to me, so I do it, even if I can’t explain why.
“Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas.” - Pascal
(The heart has its reasons that reason is not aware of…)

A person who never prays is in a spiritual desert

I agree exactly with your Pascal quote at the end; he makes my point, which is that the lived experience of religious faith (and other things) provides a kind of subjective, personal truth, very different than the kind of truth dealt with by objectivity and reason and logic. To try to apply logic to religious faith (or art, or love, etc) is to miss the point entirely of what faith is. To answer all your questions at the top of your post is missing that point. Suffice it to say, though, that when I really *think * about the world I don’t come away with any convincing conclusion that a good loving God exists or that we have souls or free will or whatever; usually, I can’t come to a conclusion or my conclusion is the opposite of these things. However, when I live this faith, attending a stations of the cross service on a Friday nite during Lent, say, I can feel a certain inkling of a subjective meaning in these acts and the belief contained therein.

You sort of made my point in a post you made in the Night topic. You said something along the line of if there was incontrovertible evidence of God in the world, then there would be no need for faith. Correct. In the end, again, we either take the leap of faith or we do not. To get bogged down in a lot of thinking is to miss the point of living (or believing).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It pops up every time God’s supposed benevolence is discussed. The atheists bring up some questions about it, and the believers will start a barrage of their rationalizations…

My amazement stems from their utmost reluctance to admit: “they believe in God’s benevolence on blind faith, they need no evidence for it”.

not everyone understands the metaphysical argumets. big deal.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course atheists never start a barrage of their rationalizations… In the forefront is their rationalization that the power to rationalize is derived from that which is irrational!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed, but why would an atheist accept it? For an atheist that is an irrational assumption.

for an atheist, an assumption of any purpose to life is irrational.