M
Mirdath
Guest
Yes. So where am I wrong about it, as mlchance claims?
- Status
D
dylanschrader
Guest
I can’t say whether you’re wrong about it or not, but I don’t think you’re expressing the doctrine the same way the Church does.
I think there’s confusion where you use the phrase “Christ’s simultaneously human and divine nature” since that seems to mean that Christ only has one nature. Perhaps we’re not using ‘nature’ in the same way.
R
Riley259
Guest
Dr. Paul Vitz thinks the root cause of atheism is a lack of or strained relationship with the father.I’ve been reading so many posts on various threads about belief/unbelief in God, I thought i’d start a new thread on a specific issue I’m sensing and hope others will share the benefit of their knowledge and opinions.
What is the REAL ROOT of atheism?
Most all the posts I’ve read are dealing with what God is or is not like, how to prove there IS a God, with quotes of scripture and very advanced (and wonderful) theological thought and ideas.
But my thoughts were as follows: Once you are at the point mentioned above, it seems to me you’ve already bypassed the root. I think we could all agree (if we were truly objective) that there is certainly a lot all around us, in science, technology, the cosmos and the world that at LEAST gives us pause to LOOK at intelligence behind it. Just that much…
I think at the heart (root, beginning) of unbelief it is mankind’s fallen nature’s tendency to resist authority, resist the idea of total dependence and lack of control that I think comes immediately (albeit unconsciously most times) to the mind and heart of man when he begins to conceptualize an ‘eternal’, ‘all-powerful’ being that is to be loved and adored!
Does anyone besides me think that before we get to all the proving business, we need to address the issue of what it MEANS if there is such a thing as God, period? I just think most atheist views run screaming from the theatre right there.
Thoughts? and thanks for sharing
M
Mirdath
Guest
I mean that the Christ is simultaneously human and divine according to Catholicism; if I used the singular term ‘nature’ (and I think I did), I misspoke, attempting grammatical rather than doctrinal rectitude.
M
Mirdath
Guest
That holds about as much water as the idea that homosexuality is brought on by an overbearing mother-figure – ie, none at all.
For the record, while I am agnostic and not atheist, my (extremely Catholic) father and I have a very close and caring relationship.
R
Riley259
Guest
Maybe you should read Dr. Vitz’s book before you make a grand pronouncement like that. And while you’re at it, why don’t you look at the actual research Nicolosi, Fitzgibbons and Satinover has done before you proclaim your belief about homosexuality and it’s origins.
M
Mirdath
Guest
I don’t have to read von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods to know it’s ridiculous; I only have to know that he proposes that the Ark of the Covenant was a radio transmitter to talk to aliens. Same with this.
R
Riley259
Guest
Thanks for that thoroughly objective answer.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Likewise I’m sure. But let’s stay on topic, shall we?
If it helps, I’m not exactly ‘new’ to this forum, or even this thread. I’m Mirdath’s counterpart and soon-to-be spouse, and have contributed when I could around here for a while.
I am shy though, and it took me this long to get past my nervousness here. I grew up without theism, though it was never denied me as an option, but I have never felt any lack in my mind or my life. And while I have as much formal schooling in philosophy, science, and nearly as much (yes, Catholic!) theology as Mirdath, I never had the option of ‘passing’ for a Christian in my youth, since I neither attended church nor could speak in fervent tones about scriptural passages or in tongues and all that.
I only mention any of this, since most respondants have been deconverts, and I am not.
Not asking for forbearance here, just letting you know…now there’s two of us.
If it helps, I’m not exactly ‘new’ to this forum, or even this thread. I’m Mirdath’s counterpart and soon-to-be spouse, and have contributed when I could around here for a while.
I am shy though, and it took me this long to get past my nervousness here. I grew up without theism, though it was never denied me as an option, but I have never felt any lack in my mind or my life. And while I have as much formal schooling in philosophy, science, and nearly as much (yes, Catholic!) theology as Mirdath, I never had the option of ‘passing’ for a Christian in my youth, since I neither attended church nor could speak in fervent tones about scriptural passages or in tongues and all that.
I only mention any of this, since most respondants have been deconverts, and I am not.
Not asking for forbearance here, just letting you know…now there’s two of us.
A
anthony022071
Guest
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.
It doesn’t contradict reason. Jesus Christ is the Word become flesh,as it says in the Gospel of John. The word used for the Word of God is Logos,and one of the definitions of logos is reason. So Jesus Christ is Reason incarnate,not the self-limiting,narrow,utilitarian reason of logicians which discounts anything metaphysical,but the creative reason of God.
It is an irresponsible arrestment of reason to deny the ability of God to become man,of the eternal to communicate with the temporal. And it is a false humility which says that we can’t know the ultimate truth. Faith and reason are only fully realized in each other.
They both need an absolute point of reference if they are not to be misguided.
A
anthony022071
Guest
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Well yes, anthony02271. I mean, such is why I am agnostic (strong-agnostic, to be clear). And I could add, about the ‘as we understand it’ part, well, who’s WE, kemosabe?
Yes, I am merely a person, and content with that, though humans do seem to aspire to more, and I would love to be a part of that in whatever ethical, honest, human way I may. Perhaps there may be one or more super-persons, whether impersonal or otherwise (and our terms mean nothing in the face of such potential!) out there, but…what is that to me? And what am I, or we to such possible beings? I cannot know, and in the meantime, I will strive to be my best, and even represent humanity if I must, though I am hardly qualified for that.
Yes, I am merely a person, and content with that, though humans do seem to aspire to more, and I would love to be a part of that in whatever ethical, honest, human way I may. Perhaps there may be one or more super-persons, whether impersonal or otherwise (and our terms mean nothing in the face of such potential!) out there, but…what is that to me? And what am I, or we to such possible beings? I cannot know, and in the meantime, I will strive to be my best, and even represent humanity if I must, though I am hardly qualified for that.
A
anthony022071
Guest
C
cynic
Guest
I often wonder about a God who allows the majority of the worlds population in the last 2000 years to live out their lives in complete ignorance of the ‘true religion’, making it much harder, if not impossible for them to get to heaven.
G
Greg27
Guest
I think atheism has various roots. Quite often atheism is in the image of the atheist. Atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins argue God does not exist (or rather, it is extremely improbable God does exist) because there is no empirical evidence God exists that science can find. Dawkins spends a lot of time in his works demolishing the design argument for God, as clearly that is the most ‘empirical’ of the traditional proofs that God exists.
Atheist philosophers often begin by looking at logical flaws in the arguments for God’s existence. David Hume, following the ancient Skeptics, tried to demolish the philosophical arguments for God’s existence (and Hume himself was most likely an atheist). Sometimes philosophers also give moral reasons for not believing in God, i.e. the God of the Bible is cruel and despotic.
Atheist writers and artists usually attack the unhealthy psychological or deadening aspects of religion.
Atheist psychologists usually reject God as they argue there is no empirical evidence beliefs in God are true and there is a natural explanation in terms of human behaviour and mental function.
Atheistic mathematicians usually use the argument of the philosophers on logical incoherence of theistic arguments and beliefs, though interestingly theistic mathematicians (such as Georg Cantor) argued their mathematics was communicated to them from God’s mind.
There are other types of atheist besides these. Generally in Western culture, atheism is closely associated with skepticism and materialism. Skepticism, which is a philosophical tradition which questions, rejects or suspends judgement on certain questions (and is in fact a vital part of philosophical inquiry) has always critiqued religion and religious beliefs. Skeptics usually pointed to the incoherence or differences amoungst various religions and beliefs in Gods, the problem of questionable revelations, the possibility religious experiences are false and mistaken and due to sensory delusion or flawed cognition or mental disease rather than true experience of unconditioned reality, the lack of rigorous verifiable evidence for the existence of God(s), the absurdity of scriptures or mythopoetic accounts of God(s), and engaged these critiques to a very high level of intellectual sophistication. These critiques occured in both East and West and in both ancient and modern times. David Hume, Sextus Empricus and Pyrrho are probably archetypal skeptics.
Materialism tries to reduce the explanation of all reality to material entities, effects and causes. It can be regarded as a powerful metaphysical extension of natural science. Materialism has been influential in various parts of the world, including in Western thought. In the ancient world the atomistic view of Lucretius and Democritus and also the ancient scientists helped produce the general Greek critique of Homeric polytheism, and in modern times we have the widespread use of metaphysical naturalism by many scientists and philosophers to reject the existence of supernatural causes and beings from the universe.
Combined, both skepticism and materialism in their various forms are the most effective rational weapons non-believers can use to convince believers their beliefs are unjustified and therefore false and ridiculous, and in my view they are probably also the roots of atheism and agnosticism.
However, I think atheism can also have social roots (i.e. a secularised society can make religious belief seem irrelevant even without invoking arguments) or political roots (i.e. atheism being an official state policy of government, as in Communist countries). There may also be economic roots as well (generally wealthier countries seem to have much lower levels of religious observance than poorer countries, with the exception of the US).
Atheist philosophers often begin by looking at logical flaws in the arguments for God’s existence. David Hume, following the ancient Skeptics, tried to demolish the philosophical arguments for God’s existence (and Hume himself was most likely an atheist). Sometimes philosophers also give moral reasons for not believing in God, i.e. the God of the Bible is cruel and despotic.
Atheist writers and artists usually attack the unhealthy psychological or deadening aspects of religion.
Atheist psychologists usually reject God as they argue there is no empirical evidence beliefs in God are true and there is a natural explanation in terms of human behaviour and mental function.
Atheistic mathematicians usually use the argument of the philosophers on logical incoherence of theistic arguments and beliefs, though interestingly theistic mathematicians (such as Georg Cantor) argued their mathematics was communicated to them from God’s mind.
There are other types of atheist besides these. Generally in Western culture, atheism is closely associated with skepticism and materialism. Skepticism, which is a philosophical tradition which questions, rejects or suspends judgement on certain questions (and is in fact a vital part of philosophical inquiry) has always critiqued religion and religious beliefs. Skeptics usually pointed to the incoherence or differences amoungst various religions and beliefs in Gods, the problem of questionable revelations, the possibility religious experiences are false and mistaken and due to sensory delusion or flawed cognition or mental disease rather than true experience of unconditioned reality, the lack of rigorous verifiable evidence for the existence of God(s), the absurdity of scriptures or mythopoetic accounts of God(s), and engaged these critiques to a very high level of intellectual sophistication. These critiques occured in both East and West and in both ancient and modern times. David Hume, Sextus Empricus and Pyrrho are probably archetypal skeptics.
Materialism tries to reduce the explanation of all reality to material entities, effects and causes. It can be regarded as a powerful metaphysical extension of natural science. Materialism has been influential in various parts of the world, including in Western thought. In the ancient world the atomistic view of Lucretius and Democritus and also the ancient scientists helped produce the general Greek critique of Homeric polytheism, and in modern times we have the widespread use of metaphysical naturalism by many scientists and philosophers to reject the existence of supernatural causes and beings from the universe.
Combined, both skepticism and materialism in their various forms are the most effective rational weapons non-believers can use to convince believers their beliefs are unjustified and therefore false and ridiculous, and in my view they are probably also the roots of atheism and agnosticism.
However, I think atheism can also have social roots (i.e. a secularised society can make religious belief seem irrelevant even without invoking arguments) or political roots (i.e. atheism being an official state policy of government, as in Communist countries). There may also be economic roots as well (generally wealthier countries seem to have much lower levels of religious observance than poorer countries, with the exception of the US).
A
anthony022071
Guest
Also,as early as the time of King David there apparently were atheists,because in one of the psalms there is the line “The fool says in his heart,‘there is no god’.” This must be the earliest recorded mention of this attitude.
J
JeannetteCML
Guest
That was very good. I want to hear Greg27’s explanation why one should be open to theism…
J
jimmy85
Guest
Well im a theist because it gives me a thruth knowledge of everything a reason for everything, because following a good moral path must make me a better person and therefore a person with a more positive view toward life and everything.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Well put, and very much appreciated (thanks especially for differentiating between strong atheism and weak atheism/strong agnosticism; the distinction is often forgotten). I suppose I’m somewhere between philosopher and skeptic in how I think.
I do have a couple of suggestions for new entries as far as actual roots go.
First, those who simply lack the ability to believe. I’m in this group, as far as I can tell. I was raised Catholic (among other things, but mostly that) and after a good deal of pain and soul-searching (ah, for lack of a better term) I realized I do not possess or really even understand the faculty of faith. I tried to make myself get it for years, and finally gave up. Other people I know were raised without religion and similarly don’t understand what faith is at all.
Second, I suppose we could call them the ‘traumatic atheists’; people who are very suddenly and dramatically overwhelmed by the Problem of Evil, and can’t bring themselves to accept that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God would allow such-and-such event to occur. Hellisreal started a thread over in Non-Catholic Religions recently about a friend of hers who reacted this way when her brother was killed in a car accident.
- Status