The Root of Atheism

[StCsDavid]

IMHO, the root of atheism is science. Atheists tend to spend a lot of energy trying to prove God’s existence through the limitations of finite laws of physical science. While they may find philosophy and even theology interesting, in the end they always seem to run home to the lessor discipline of science.

Having said that, while I wish they shared my joy for the love of God, part of me believes that if it be God’s will for me to join Him in Heaven, I will be more likely to find atheists there and less likely to find the lukewarm Catholics. Something blocks the atheist from the truth in the here and now, and certainly that something might very well be self-inflicted, but the lukewarm Catholic knows better and chooses his lazy ways.

 

[mchium]

I can’t agree with that, when it comes to things like this people will always believe what they they want (not just what is immediately appealing though). Yes Christians sacrifice immediate gratification (sin) for their beliefs, but you could say that the psychological benefits of such belief (a meaning to life, relatives awaiting them in heaven) more than makes up for it.

Sorry…maybe I wasn’t clear in what I said. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’ll try again. I didn’t mean that there is no ‘want’ in the equation…I only meant that, at the end of the day, I believe one believes in God because one believes He is really there, really who He says He is, etc. (i.e. that God’s existence is Truth…that what He reveals about Himself is Truth)

I could also put it the other way around: No one would believe in God, just cause they wanted to, if they believed the whole thing was false.

Hope that clears it up a little. If not, maybe someone else can say it better.

Thank you…

 

[dylanschrader]

That’s kind of the point – one of them, anyway.

This is just the argument from first cause.

Yes; it is. I’m not trying to prove the existence of God here, but I am trying to prove that if there is a God then we would be capable of knowing that with certainty.

If I accept your argument (which, for the record, I do not) I have three answers for that question just off the top of my head. The first is that God considers our good, lesser though it may be, is at its best shining for itself and not drowned out. There’s a time for halogen bulbs and a time for candlelight.

It’s true that we have lesser light by nature, but human beings will never be happy without the light of glory. Human nature tells us that we’ll never be happy until we live forever, knowing the truth without any error and loving the greatest good without any hate.

The second is actually rather Catholic in nature: if God revealed himself beyond a doubt, free will is thoroughly abrogated. People would have no choice but to believe.

That’s why man does not have an immediate vision of God but only mediate knowledge of him (in this life). An immediate vision of God would overwhelm the will because God is the greatest good.

This does not mean, however, that we cannot know God mediately through his creatures or even that God has not revealed himself.

The third is that God’s a consummate practical joker and possesses, among his other goods, a great sense of humor.

But if God is self-sufficient (which the first cause must be), then he would gain nothing by creating creatures that need to know him and then making it impossible for them to know him.

I do not know what Benedictus thinks, but in my opinion, if there is such a thing as a God it is not likely to be very personal, necessarily omnibenevolent, or even at all recognizable as something in whose image we may have been molded.

If God isn’t personal, do persons exist at all?

 

[Mirdath]

It’s true that we have lesser light by nature, but human beings will never be happy without the light of glory. Human nature tells us that we’ll never be happy until we live forever, knowing the truth without any error and loving the greatest good without any hate.

Some humans’ natures, maybe; I do not want to live forever. It’d get boring eventually.

That’s why man does not have an immediate vision of God but only mediate knowledge of him (in this life). An immediate vision of God would overwhelm the will because God is the greatest good.

This does not mean, however, that we cannot know God mediately through his creatures or even that God has not revealed himself.

It just makes it so some of us can’t even see that

But if God is self-sufficient (which the first cause must be), then he would gain nothing by creating creatures that need to know him and then making it impossible for them to know him.

If God is self-sufficient, he gains nothing by creating anything in the first place. If he is Love itself, the creation of other beings will not add to or subtract from that Love.

Maybe he’s lonely. But that would make him imperfect, and therefore not God.

If God isn’t personal, do persons exist at all?

Certainly. We create stereos and record players and instruments, yet we do not share any of those devices’ attributes except the capacity to make sound. Why could not an omnipotent being create a thing that moves and changes and thinks and laughs and feels, while not doing any of these things itself? Why mold a deity in our image and constrain it to our expectations and desires?

 

[dylanschrader]

Some humans’ natures, maybe; I do not want to live forever. It’d get boring eventually.

I mean living! Things are only boring without love.

It just makes it so some of us can’t even see that

If God is self-sufficient, he gains nothing by creating anything in the first place. If he is Love itself, the creation of other beings will not add to or subtract from that Love.

Maybe he’s lonely. But that would make him imperfect, and therefore not God.

Exactly. So, if there is a God and we exist, then he has created us for our own sake. If that’s the case, then why would he frustrate our happiness since our happiness is the reason he created us?

Certainly. We create stereos and record players and instruments, yet we do not share any of those devices’ attributes except the capacity to make sound. Why could not an omnipotent being create a thing that moves and changes and thinks and laughs and feels, while not doing any of these things itself?

We create those devices out of existing matter according to physical laws which exist independently of us. Those devices don’t have the same attributes as us, but the attributes they have come from somewhere.

God creates out of nothing.

If persons exist, personhood has to come from somewhere. I would also add that since personhood is a spiritual quality, it has to come from spirit and not matter.

Because of the nature of personhood (self-possession, being someone), it could not have come from something non-personal, for then something would have come from nothing.

Why mold a deity in our image and constrain it to our expectations and desires?

You can’t mold a deity; it’s the other way around.

 

[Mirdath]

Exactly. So, if there is a God and we exist, then he has created us for our own sake. If that’s the case, then why would he frustrate our happiness since our happiness is the reason he created us?

I do not know; but since you claim he is the fullness of Love and Good, as we cannot know him directly our happiness would seem to be frustrated.

If persons exist, personhood has to come from somewhere. I would also add that since personhood is a spiritual quality, it has to come from spirit and not matter.

Is it truly a spiritual quality?

Because of the nature of personhood (self-possession, being someone), it could not have come from something non-personal, for then something would have come from nothing.

Uh…

God creates out of nothing.

Come again?

You can’t mold a deity; it’s the other way around.

Indeed; so why say ‘God must needs be personal and like us’?

 

[dylanschrader]

I do not know; but since you claim he is the fullness of Love and Good, as we cannot know him directly our happiness would seem to be frustrated.

We can know him directly but only by the help of supernatural grace.

Man has a supernatural destiny, that is, man cannot fulfill his purpose with the faculties he has by nature alone.

Is it truly a spiritual quality?

Yes because personhood consists in self-possession and the ability to give oneself. Persons are self-determined, and matter is not self-determined.

Uh…

Something impersonal can’t create someone personal, but someone personal can create something impersonal.

Come again?

God created everything that exists out of nothing and maintains its existence at every moment.

Indeed; so why say ‘God must needs be personal and like us’?

Oh, God is not like us. We are like him, though, because he made us, and we are more like him than purely material things because we are persons having the use of intellect and will.

 

[mlchance]

So after four pages, what have we seen? Atheists attacking that which they do not actually understand (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), repeatedly based on little more than the intellectually dishonest claim that there is no evidence for God.

The “no evidence” argument is nothing more than an extended exercise in denial and circular reasoning. To quote in part the summation of chapter one of Malcolm McLean’s 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted):
The atheist might object that…[Christians] have not provided repeated, testable empirical evidence for God. That is in the nature of the subject. An omnipotent and omniscient being cannot be subject to controlled conditions. Neither can we get into a time machine and test historical facts directly, we must infer from surviving evidence. . . . . So almost every area of human knowledge has some limitations of the kind of evidence that is available. Theology is no exception.

The “no evidence” argument is thus trivially nonsense, and when we look deeper rather weak. There is substantial evidence for Christianity, and we are not making assertions with nothing to back them up.-- Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mirdath]

We can know him directly but only by the help of supernatural grace.

Bit of a problem for those of us who aren’t so blessed.

Yes because personhood consists in self-possession and the ability to give oneself. Persons are self-determined, and matter is not self-determined.

That makes it more than base matter, but I am not so sure it makes it supernatural.

Something impersonal can’t create someone personal, but someone personal can create something impersonal.

Omnipotence does not require a face or a personality, does it?

God created everything that exists out of nothing and maintains its existence at every moment.

Just before that you said we persons could not have been created by an impersonal being, because then something would have come from nothing. So we already know that God creates things out of nothing – and hence, your objection to the idea of an impersonal God creating persons because a thing would be coming from nothing does not stand.

Oh, God is not like us. We are like him, though, because he made us, and we are more like him than purely material things because we are persons having the use of intellect and will.

This defies logic. If A ~ B, B ~ A. If we are like God, God is like us. However, most concepts of God seem rather anthropomorphic – the Old Testament recounts God changing his mind, feeling emotions, and generally acting like a really powerful human being. Problematically, this indicates that God is capable of changing state; and perfection is a unique state. The only motion away from perfection is toward imperfection, so a true deity must needs persist in the same state.

Personhood is a dynamic thing; persons change state all the time, make choices, move, perform actions, ‘give oneself’ as you noted. God therefore cannot be a person under the same definition by which we are persons.

mlchance:

So after four pages, what have we seen? Atheists attacking that which they do not actually understand (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), repeatedly based on little more than the intellectually dishonest claim that there is no evidence for God.

It would seem to me rather that theists have an imperfect understanding of what they believe. I do not claim to have perfect understanding of what you believe either, but it’s generally pretty good.

You yourself appear not to understand non-theism, claiming that ‘There isn’t a single atheist out there who actually rejects authentic Christian (read: Catholic) doctrine.’ I have quite specifically rejected the idea that God is personal and that we are created in his image here; elsewhere I have rejected the doctrine of the Christ’s simultaneously divine and human nature as a paradox if not a contradiction in terms, among countless others. What could be a more authentically Catholic doctrine than those?

 

[dylanschrader]

Bit of a problem for those of us who aren’t so blessed.

The immediate vision of God is usually called the Beatific Vision and is not something that we on earth have.

That makes it more than base matter, but I am not so sure it makes it supernatural.

Personhood isn’t supernatural; it’s in human nature.

Omnipotence does not require a face or a personality, does it?

Just before that you said we persons could not have been created by an impersonal being, because then something would have come from nothing. So we already know that God creates things out of nothing – and hence, your objection to the idea of an impersonal God creating persons because a thing would be coming from nothing does not stand.

God creates things out of nothing–they come from God not from nothing.

If God were not personal, then all of creation occurred out of necessity since he could not have the faculty of the will without personhood.

If God were not personal, then his act of creation would have to be determined by some cause; the act of creation would be necessary and not free. A cause that would necessarily determine God’s act of creation could not be external to God since before the act of creation there was nothing but God. A cause that would necessarily determine God’s act of creation could also not be internal since that would mean that God is imperfect and not sufficient in himself.

Therefore, if God exists he must have chosen freely to create for the sake of his creatures, and this free choice means that God is personal.

The efficient cause of everything else cannot be determined by another efficient cause.

This defies logic. If A ~ B, B ~ A. If we are like God, God is like us.

What I mean is that we cannot apply terms univocally to creatures and to God. I can say that I am good and that God is good, but the word “good” necessarily means something different in both cases because of the transcendence of God.

Speaking strictly logically, yes, you can say “God is like X” (the Scriptures do it all the time), but when you say “X is like God” it emphasizes the priority of God before all creation as well as making more clear the finitude of the language we use to speak about God.

However, most concepts of God seem rather anthropomorphic – the Old Testament recounts God changing his mind, feeling emotions, and generally acting like a really powerful human being. Problematically, this indicates that God is capable of changing state; and perfection is a unique state. The only motion away from perfection is toward imperfection, so a true deity must needs persist in the same state.

God doesn’t change. We have to use our limited language to describe God. Often, we find the via negativa or analogical language the most fruitful way to apply our language, which is based on creatures, to God.

Personhood is a dynamic thing; persons change state all the time, make choices, move, perform actions, ‘give oneself’ as you noted. God therefore cannot be a person under the same definition by which we are persons.

Personhood in itself does not require mutability.

Acting also does not require mutability. God is pure act. In him there is no transition from potentiality to actuality. Thus, he acts and is immutable.

I have quite specifically rejected the idea that God is personal and that we are created in his image here; elsewhere I have rejected the doctrine of the Christ’s simultaneously divine and human nature as a paradox if not a contradiction in terms, among countless others. What could be a more authentically Catholic doctrine than those?

That sounds more like a Monophysite doctrine than a Catholic one. The Catholic Church holds that Christ has two natures.

 

[Herod]

I believe in God, but what exactly this God is and means is the difficult thing. Of course I can recite the Creeds like most Christians, but I incline to the belief that there is a God, although He is largely ineffable and all but unknowable except through symbols handed down to us in Scripture. God is seen in Jesus, but again, who has seen the glory except for those few at the transfiguration. So our present knowledge is fairly secondhand. I recall, however, the line in the Catholic hymn ‘praestet fides supplementum’. I think it’s an important thought. Faith supplies our need.

So do we need knowledge and proof? Would not these destroy the very concept of faith? Jesus said:“Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen”. Rather I consciously choose to believe, if only because I cannot explain my own existence to myself without acknowledging a Creator. And where I have difficulty or lack, I trust to faith to make up my deficiency. I find reciting the Lord’s Prayer also gives a window on our Father. We learn something even by the fact that Jesus called Him Abba - Daddy, rather than the formal Father.

So then, I do accept God exists? In human terms, I have no idea. I cast myself into the ocean faith and I hope that He does exist, and that He loves me as his creature enough to care for me and my temporal and spiritual welfare. And after all that nothing else matters for the rest is surely out of my control and I am content that it should be so.

I can no more prove to my satisfaction, let alone anyone else’s that ‘there is a God’ than I can prove there is a Santa Claus. But if there isn’t, wouldn’t existence itself be rather pointless?

So, God help me, I choose to believe.

 

[Mirdath]

If God were not personal, then all of creation occurred out of necessity since he could not have the faculty of the will without personhood.

If God were not personal, then his act of creation would have to be determined by some cause; the act of creation would be necessary and not free. A cause that would necessarily determine God’s act of creation could not be external to God since before the act of creation there was nothing but God. A cause that would necessarily determine God’s act of creation could also not be internal since that would mean that God is imperfect and not sufficient in himself.

Therefore, if God exists he must have chosen freely to create for the sake of his creatures, and this free choice means that God is personal.

True.

I do not say that a deity has no will or is acting on animal instinct, but that a deity is not a person as we understand it. It is a super-person, if you like – and not something we mere people can comprehend or claim to be made in the image and likeness of. ‘Impersonal’ can go both ways from our position.

God doesn’t change. We have to use our limited language to describe God. Often, we find the via negativa or analogical language the most fruitful way to apply our language, which is based on creatures, to God.

The bible is pretty explicit about God changing, especially in the Old Testament. The incarnation itself is quite a drastic alteration. The second person of the trinity became man, according to the Credo; it was not always man, else Adam would not have been first.

Acting also does not require mutability. God is pure act. In him there is no transition from potentiality to actuality. Thus, he acts and is immutable.

Or as Goethe writes:
Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh ich Rat
Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat!

God’s will is his action. Fair enough, on the surface; but it has other implications. It’s a bit of a blow to the ‘image and likeness’ idea, in that our will and action are constrained and often separate; we operate in an entirely different frame of reference. A God who is Act is completely foreign to us.

That sounds more like a Monophysite doctrine than a Catholic one. The Catholic Church holds that Christ has two natures.

Sorry, it may not have been clear – I meant the idea that the Christ is fully human and fully divine at the same time.

 

[mlchance]

You yourself appear not to understand non-theism, claiming that ‘There isn’t a single atheist out there who actually rejects authentic Christian (read: Catholic) doctrine.’

That wasn’t my claim. You yank one sentence of out context, avoiding the thesis, in order to set up a strawman. Let’s look at what I actually said (with emphasis added):
"mlchance:

Two roots: ignorance of what is actually being rejected and arrogance about the conclusions arrived at via this ignorance.

Look around and read the posts and books. There isn’t a single atheist out there who actually rejects authentic Christian (read: Catholic) doctrine. Every single atheist rejects the strawman of a distorted Christianity while at the same time at least implying that people who don’t are at least self-deluded.

Further QED of strawmen:

…elsewhere I have rejected the doctrine of the Christ’s simultaneously divine and human nature as a paradox if not a contradiction in terms, among countless others.

You don’t understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union, or you’d know that it isn’t a contradiction in terms. Likewise, your qualifier that the doctrine is a paradox (and, therefore, unacceptable) doesn’t hold water, unless, of course, you reject all paradoxes and apparent contradictions.

For example:

1. Which do you reject: Newtonian physics or quantum physics?
2. You must reject the authority of the law, since it is paradoxical that liberty can only be secured by legal restraints.
3. Of course, homosexual activity must be at least seriously quesitonable since it plainly contradicts the primary purpose of the sexual act.

Since you’ll undoubtedly not reject at least one of the above, it seems that there must be some other reason for your rejection of Christianity, and undoubtedly that reason has everything to do with rejecting the authority Christian moral teaching. Thus, you dismiss the divinity of Christ and the personhood of God because otherwise you’d be faced with the undeniable authority of Christian morality.

(Of course, when it suits your argument, you handily appeal to the Christian moral teaching, as evidenced by at least one other thread where you vainly try to pit the authority of Jesus against the authority of the Apostle Paul in order to rationalize the moral permissibility of homosexual activity.)

IOW, like every atheist, you don’t reject Christianity because it is false. You reject Christianity because it necessarily imposes limits and obligations on your behavior which you’d rather not have to deal with. This is the a priori conclusion resting behind every single so-called argument ever advanced by atheists.

There is ample evidence for Christianity. No atheist has ever refuted this evidence. Instead, atheists refute strawmen, either unintentional distortions of Christianity based in ignorance or intentional distortions based in pride. All the while, the actual evidence itself is ignored.

As G. K. Chesterton observed (I paraphrase), Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting. It has be found hard and left untried.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[dylanschrader]

The bible is pretty explicit about God changing, especially in the Old Testament.

The Bible uses many manners of expression. God–by the definition we’ve been using–does not change.

The incarnation itself is quite a drastic alteration. The second person of the trinity became man, according to the Credo; it was not always man, else Adam would not have been first.

Yes. The Second Person became man–he took on a human nature. His divine nature did not change.

Sorry, it may not have been clear – I meant the idea that the Christ is fully human and fully divine at the same time.

Don’t worry, I know.

 

[Kaninchen]

Isn’t it rather arrogant to assume that people deciding to be atheists are specifically rejecting Christianity? Many atheists (especially in societies where atheism is as common as any other belief structure) inherit their atheism (rather like most Catholics inherit their Catholicism), many atheists come from different religious traditions altogether.

It’s a bit like telling me that I’m Jewish because I reject Jesus when, to me, I’m Jewish and Jesus is as much an irrelevance in my life as Mohammed, John Smith or David Koresh.

 

[Mirdath]

That wasn’t my claim. You yank one sentence of out context, avoiding the thesis, in order to set up a strawman. Let’s look at what I actually said (with emphasis added):

So instead of accusing me of ignorance, it accuses me of ignorance and malice. I see no reason to further the latter by responding to it, but I do take exception to being called ignorant.

You don’t understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union, or you’d know that it isn’t a contradiction in terms.

Human nature is not divine nature; the Christ’s nature is simultaneously human and divine. It is a Mystery, something humans are not able to accept on reason. It requires faith. I understand it, but I do not accept it because it contradicts reason.

1. Which do you reject: Newtonian physics or quantum physics?

Newtonian. It is, however, a close enough (and simpler!) solution to be useful in certain frames of reference.

1. You must reject the authority of the law, since it is paradoxical that liberty can only be secured by legal restraints.

Not a paradox. Law exists to protect liberty for all people on an equal footing. Certain actions infringe upon the liberty of others, so they are forbidden. Some laws are unjust in that they forbid actions that do not infringe in this way or permit infringement.

1. Of course, homosexual activity must be at least seriously quesitonable since it plainly contradicts the primary purpose of the sexual act.

One primary purpose. Given that we are emotional beings, it serves purposes other than procreation. By your logic, sex after menopause is similarly verboten. Not a paradox.

Since you’ll undoubtedly not reject at least one of the above

Oops.

it seems that there must be some other reason for your rejection of Christianity, and undoubtedly that reason has everything to do with rejecting the authority Christian moral teaching. Thus, you dismiss the divinity of Christ and the personhood of God because otherwise you’d be faced with the undeniable authority of Christian morality.

Morality has nothing to do with why I fell away from the Catholic Church. I simply cannot believe.

(Of course, when it suits your argument, you handily appeal to the Christian moral teaching, as evidenced by at least one other thread where you vainly try to pit the authority of Jesus against the authority of the Apostle Paul in order to rationalize the moral permissibility of homosexual activity.)

When discussing Christian morality and the problems and inconsistencies it presents, why should I not appeal to its highest authority over a lesser?

IOW, like every atheist, you don’t reject Christianity because it is false.

I reject it because it is beyond reason and I do not have faith. It may be true, but I think it unlikely.

All the while, the actual evidence itself is ignored.

What actual evidence?

As G. K. Chesterton observed (I paraphrase), Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting. It has be found hard and left untried.

I tried, for years. It didn’t work out.

Dear, sweet good Christian…remember the Samaritan. Go thou and do the same. Even I can do so, by the teachings of your favorite moralist, and several others.

 

[mlchance]

My contention remains that no atheist truly rejects Christianity, but merely rejects distortions of it.

Human nature is not divine nature; the Christ’s nature is simultaneously human and divine.

Like I said, you don’t understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union, for that doctrine does not state that Christ’s nature is “simultaneously human and divine.”

Regarding my contention: QED.

Anything else you say is mere rationalization, largely in an effort to justify homosexual activity.

Adieu.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mirdath]

I have an interest in furthering all kindly human activity, and love, no matter between whom.

 

[Mirdath]

My contention remains that no atheist truly rejects Christianity, but merely rejects distortions of it.

Remains, and remains in error.

Like I said, you don’t understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union, for that doctrine does not state that Christ’s nature is “simultaneously human and divine.”

Then explain to me where my understanding is wrong. Is the hypostatic union not the teaching that the Christ is simultaneously fully human and fully divine, or again to return to your own Credo, ‘true God and true man’?

Anything else you say is mere rationalization, largely in an effort to justify homosexual activity.

 

[dylanschrader]

For the record, the doctrine of the hypostatic union is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. In his one divine Person are united a human nature and a divine nature, without division or change, without confusion or separation.

He is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, born of the Father before all ages and born in time of a woman.

See also the Chalcedonian decrees on this matter.