The theology of the Catholic faith rises or falls on the evidence for Gods existence

[MindOverMatter2]

From maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/atheism-and-theism/

*Is Atheism Intellectually Respectable? On Romans 1:18-20

Joe Carter over at First Things argues that “We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.” My own view is that theism and atheism are both intellectually respectable. Carter makes his case by invoking St. Paul:

In Romans, St. Paul is clear that atheism is a case of vincible ignorance: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Acknowledging the existence of God is just the beginning—we must also recognize several of his divine attributes. Atheists that deny this reality are, as St. Paul said, without excuse. They are vincibly ignorant.*

It seems to me, that according to the above quote of St Paul, to be a catholic is not just a profession of faith but rather one must also agree that Gods existence is evident in his creation. St Paul statement makes it quite clear that the only reason that atheists, capable of rational thinking, can’t see the evidence is because they are deceitful to themselves. They are lying to themselves and have thus manifested a self delusion because of their sinful nature.

There seems to be a few Catholics on this forum who think that there is no logical observable evidence for Gods existence. But St.Paul seems to rebuke those Catholics who think this to be true. In fact he doesn’t even respect probabilistic arguments which allow for a degree of doubt. He says that there is clear evidence which seems to imply a degree of certainty that cannot be doubted without being delusional and deceitful. This is clearly what St. Paul intends to imply when he say that atheism is without excuse.

Thus it seems to me that unless the Catholic wishes to admit that there can be theologically erroneous opinions in the bible, the Catholic must profess that Gods existence can be proven philosophically and thus clearly seen in the things that have been made. Therefore, if I am correct, the Catholic has to believe, as a dogma of faith, that atheists are self deceitful dishonest creatures. If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it.

What say ye?

 

[ManOnFire]

Do atheists honestly believe that there is/was no Creator? If there was no Creator, then there was no beginning of time and space, only infinity, since something always existed before then. All theories about the beginning of time and space do not fit logically along with the belief that there was no Creator. There would be little point to continue the study of cosmology if there’s no faith, hope, belief that a beginning of time and space exists. We have no use for objects that are millions of light years away since we can never travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Thus it seems to me that unless the Catholic wishes to admit that there can be theologically erroneous opinions in the bible,

Catholic Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond Brown argued that there were theologically erroneous opinions in the Bible, so apparently that is a valid option for Catholics to take.

 

[JohnDamian]

I am afraid I must ask; if it was so self evident why did St Paul require God’s intervention?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am afraid I must ask; if it was so self evident why did St Paul require God’s intervention?

Its irrelevant. This is not about how he came to acknowledge God, this is about what he has said in relation to knowledge of Gods existence. I tell you what; build a time machine, go back in time, and then ask St. Paul what he was talking about. I am only going by what the logic of his statement implies. Perhaps I am interpreting what he said in the wrong context, and if you can show me that I am wrong, then that’s perfectly fine. As for there being theological errors in the bible, as far as I know, this is not an accepted teaching of the church. But perhaps I am wrong again. This is why I made the thread, so I could find out what other Catholics think. I have made my Argument. Its up to you to counter it.

 

[JohnDamian]

This is why I made the thread, so I could find out what other Catholics think. I have made my Argument. Its up to you to counter it.

I feel somewhat guilty about devils advocating; however I fear your argumentation is weak and might lead some confused or atheistic people further from the Church so I shall do my best to help highlight areas I feel might be wrong.

Certainly; there is a logical evidence of the existance of God; however your presentation of Pauls argument for vincible ignorance presumes the capacity and availability of such logical evidence and it’s internalisation by the reader. Many atheists are unable to understand the logical arguments that prove the existence of God; furthermore, many have not encountered these arguments. Speaking frankly; I myself was of an atheist persuasion until I was able to comprehend and access resources demonstrating apodeictically the existance of God.

However; Even if one takes these arguments for the existance of God truly, and comprehends them fully (which are the primary two objections) one does not nessecarily arrive at Christ. It is evident that many other people will be led to a form of Deism; or alternative Theism; such as Islam. Which although catered for by section 841 (?) of the catechism does not allow fully for the truthful embrace of Christ.

In short; Paul pressuposes the capacity and availability of these documents to people. Which seems to be an overestimation of both the aforementioned.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I feel somewhat guilty about devils advocating; however I fear your argumentation is weak and might lead some confused or atheistic people further from the Church so I shall do my best to help highlight areas I feel might be wrong.

Certainly; there is a logical evidence of the existance of God; however your presentation of Pauls argument for vincible ignorance presumes the capacity and availability of such logical evidence and it’s internalisation by the reader. Many atheists are unable to understand the logical arguments that prove the existence of God; furthermore, many have not encountered these arguments. Speaking frankly; I myself was of an atheist persuasion until I was able to comprehend and access resources demonstrating apodeictically the existance of God.

However; Even if one takes these arguments for the existence of God truly, and comprehends them fully (which are the primary two objections) one does not necessarily arrive at Christ. It is evident that many other people will be led to a form of Deism; or alternative Theism; such as Islam. Which although catered for by section 841 (?) of the catechism does not allow fully for the truthful embrace of Christ.

I am fully aware of these facts. I to went through a similar process; but you are simply failing to understand what talking about. I am talking about the theological implications of what “Paul” is saying. Not what ***I ***am saying; what Paul is saying. What Paul is saying implies that there is observable evidence in creation that points necessarily to the existence of God. He is saying that its “clear” evidence. I am willing to accept that Paul is not implying that everybody is capable of making an inference from the natural order to the existence of God since there are those who suffer with intellectual deficiencies. For example, my sister has brain damage and thus cannot possibly comprehend the arguments for Gods existence. I have acknowledged this else where. But it seems to me that Paul does think, quite reasonably, that anybody with an average intelligence, with some honest effort, is capable of knowing Gods existence. And I agree with him. Its not rocket science.

In short; Paul pressuposes the capacity and availability of these documents to people. Which seems to be an overestimation of both the aforementioned.

I think he reasonably assumes that most “rational” atheists are capable of knowing God, but simply refuse to make the effort. Either that, or they are in denial of the evidence. The atheists who come to this forum are not stupid people.

 

[Windfish]

Therefore, if I am correct, the Catholic has to believe, as a dogma of faith, that atheists are self deceitful dishonest creatures.

I agree with this, and I make no excuses about it. I have been studying Our Lady of Fatima for the past several months, and I have read the dozens of available reports and transcripts from agnostics and atheists who witnessed the Miracle of the Sun, and while they confirmed the miracle, they insisted on remaining an unbeliever. You should really read what they wrote - it’s pathetic.

 

[JohnDamian]

I think he reasonably assumes that most “rational” atheists are capable of knowing God, but simply refuse to make the effort.

This is certainly the crux of the problem!

It is almost cyclic that those who lack the knowlege at present lack the desire to look for the truth. As they presently hold what they believe to be true they do not have any incentive (in their eyes) to look further; even when presented with the classical Thomistic/Aristotelian/Kantian arguments, as the terminology is often not (presently) known to them they see no reason to pursue it; and by consequence they don’t.

I speak from experience; when I was skeptical I had no incentive to look up all of what seemed to be “mumbo jumbo” about “proof” for God. I simply dismissed it as I had no incentive or desire to learn.

I do agree with you, most people of average or above capacity can easily learn the terminology relevant to the proofs; but it simply is not on the agenda for atheists. In the same way as I feel no burning desire to read the upanishads; the Atheist feels no desire to read the proofs for the existance of God.

It is the fault of the believer for not thrusting vehemently enough upon the atheist the absurdity of their problem; it is not in proving God that we win converts; it is in pulling the proverbial rug of ignorance from under their feet and telling them “pay attention” whilst you show them the truth that results are won. There is no fruit in spouting even the most wonderful of music to closed ears.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In New Testament times, there was no quantum theory, no general relativity, no scientific “big bang” theory, and it is certainly possible that all the atheists of the time fell into St. Paul’s description. However, my personal view is that St. Paul’s description of atheism is very poorly suited to understanding and interacting with and evangelizing the modern atheists of today.

My prediction is that the new Vatican department to deal with atheists will soon spawn some major doctrinal development as regards atheism. Kind of like how Vatican II changed the Church’s understanding of Protestants from “defective Catholics” to “separated brethren” and fellow Christians.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

From maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/atheism-and-theism/

*Is Atheism Intellectually Respectable? On Romans 1:18-20

Joe Carter over at First Things argues that “We have to abandon the politically correct notion that atheism is intellectually respectable.” My own view is that theism and atheism are both intellectually respectable. Carter makes his case by invoking St. Paul:

In Romans, St. Paul is clear that atheism is a case of vincible ignorance: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Acknowledging the existence of God is just the beginning—we must also recognize several of his divine attributes. Atheists that deny this reality are, as St. Paul said, without excuse. They are vincibly ignorant.*

It seems to me, that according to the above quote of St Paul, to be a catholic is not just a profession of faith but rather one must also agree that Gods existence is evident in his creation. St Paul statement makes it quite clear that the only reason that atheists, capable of rational thinking, can’t see the evidence is because they are deceitful to themselves. They are lying to themselves and have thus manifested a self delusion because of their sinful nature.

There seems to be a few Catholics on this forum who think that there is no logical observable evidence for Gods existence. But St.Paul seems to rebuke those Catholics who think this to be true. In fact he doesn’t even respect probabilistic arguments which allow for a degree of doubt. He says that there is clear evidence which seems to imply a degree of certainty that cannot be doubted without being delusional and deceitful. This is clearly what St. Paul intends to imply when he say that atheism is without excuse.

Thus it seems to me that unless the Catholic wishes to admit that there can be theologically erroneous opinions in the bible, the Catholic must profess that Gods existence can be proven philosophically and thus clearly seen in the things that have been made. Therefore, if I am correct, the Catholic has to believe, as a dogma of faith, that atheists are self deceitful dishonest creatures. If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it.

What say ye?

I thnk you’re probably, at least in some way, referring to me because of my thread, “Well, why?”

You make some fair points. So here’s my question: What is this easily observeble evidence you speak of?

 

[HumbledCatholic]

I know he was Jansenist, but what about Pascal…

He relies on the opposite premise to make the Wager work.

 

[tonyrey]

St Paul’s statement makes it quite clear that the only reason that atheists, capable of rational thinking, can’t see the evidence is because they are deceitful to themselves. They are lying to themselves and have thus manifested a self delusion because of their sinful nature.

St Paul was not writing at a time when the mass media have brainwashed many people into believing we are just animals…

 

[allenirvan]

There seems to be a few Catholics on this forum who think that there is no logical observable evidence for Gods existence.

There is plenty of logical observable evidence. The issue is that a large bit of it is philosophical, miraculous, or personal thus this evidence exists as pure idea or it is unrepeatable or unsubstantiatable (is that a word?). To the empiricist/atheist, none of this evidence is good enough.

I just want to say that these folks hold to a school of thought about knowledge that is quite different to the one that allows for a belief in God. We as Christians derive much from human intuition. These people say that isn’t good enough.

My issue with atheism isn’t that they deny that God’s existence is provable via science, its that they deny - as Paul pointed out - what is obvious from nature, from our intuition concerning nature.

I honestly feel I have been misunderstood in many of these crazy threads when I say that I don’t believe empirical evidence or science will ever prove the existence of God. I’m not denying the plethora of evidence, it just occurs to me that the scientific method assumes by definition that a miracle will not happen in an experiment, unless of course you’re testing God… It assumes no divine intervention or bending/breaking from the normal working of this universe.

Lets do a little exercise here for fun: Take a look at Luke 4:9-12:

"[9] And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and he said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence. [10] For it is written, that He hath given his angels charge over thee, that they keep thee.

[11] And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. [12] And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Adapted from Wikipedia on the Scientific Method: “A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:”

1. Question: “If thou be the Son of God”
2. Gather info and resources: “And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple”
3. Form a Hypothesis: “For it is written, that He hath given his angels charge over thee, that they keep thee. And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
4. Perform Experiment: “cast thyself from hence”
5. Analyze Data: Jesus didn’t participate
6. Draw conclusions: Jesus didn’t participate
7. Publish Results: Jesus didn’t participate
8. Retest: Jesus didn’t participate the first time…

My point is this, Satan proposed an “experiment” as a temptation of Jesus to prove he was the Son of God; if God will not submit to this example then who are we to think he’ll anymore submit to ours, “It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”

My conclusion: God gives us whatever tangible evidence we need to believe and bolster our faith (ex. doubting Thomas), but ultimately the real evidence that God has given is as Paul said, “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” Therefore, I believe because I know it to be true. God has left his signature upon his creation, his mark upon my soul and has given me faith. Absolute truth does not exist with science or empiricism but only with God.

 

[inocente]

Does anyone else read Rom 1:18-20 like me?

There’s no need to prove God’s existence philosophically, because the truth has already been made plain, we see it clearly. But even starting down the path of trying to prove God’s existence may incur some wrath, because it implies we think God did a bad job of making it plain enough. So we should sit back and watch God smite ye atheists by having them run around in circles until they admit the truth.

 

[allenirvan]

Does anyone else read Rom 1:18-20 like me?

There’s no need to prove God’s existence philosophically, because the truth has already been made plain, we see it clearly. But even starting down the path of trying to prove God’s existence may incur some wrath, because it implies we think God did a bad job of making it plain enough. So we should sit back and watch God smite ye atheists by having them run around in circles until they admit the truth.

I agree. All this talk of “proof”, “truth”, “knowledge”, and “evidence” can be very misleading since the atheist’s definition of these words is vastly different than the Christian’s definition.

 

[AntiTheist]

I absolutely agree with this thread’s title.

A few preliminaries. In life, when we accept claims as true, we do so on the basis of evidence. How much evidence we need – and what kind of evidence – depends on the claim.

When we’re just chatting with someone online, we might accept one of their ordinary claims (like “I own a cat”) on the basis of only our knowledge that a lot of people own cats. We’re happy to grant our acceptance in such a case because it doesn’t assume much, it furthers the conversation, and if the other guy is lying, hey, it’s not exactly earth-shattering news, is it?

When we’re making claims about our mental or emotional state, we use evidence drawn from our observation of our emotional state. The claim, “I feel happy” or “I love my wife” can be supported quite adequately with the observation of our inner state. There is no empirical evidence drawn from the world outside of ourselves necessary for such a claim because it is not a claim about the world outside of ourselves.

When we’re making claims about the world independent of ourselves, we use evidence drawn from the world independent of ourselves. The more evidence we have, the more certain we are that the claim is true. In daily life, this rarely involves using the “scientific method.” The claim, “My car will start when I turn the key” only requires the evidence of my experience, my inductive reasoning, and a handful of other facts (that my car has gas, for example).

The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence one needs to support it. If I’m talking to a guy online who claims to have a cat that can fly under its own power, I’m not going to take his word for it, as I might do for a much more ordinary claim. I’m going to want to investigate and obtain some convincing data that this cat exists before believing the claim – the extraordinary nature of the claim necessitates more evidence from the world independent of me.

Until there is evidence for such an extraordinary claim, the rational position is to not accept it.

So finally we come to god claims. People who claim that a disembodied intelligence exists, cares for everything in the universe, and intervenes in nature – and that is some heck of an extraordinary claim! – need to support this claim with evidence drawn from the world that is independent of their own minds (unless they are just claiming that god is nothing more than a thought or feeling inside of their minds).

Things that exist are things that manifest in ways that are detectable. If something exists and does not manifest in a way that is detectable, then it is indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist.

Certainly, things like “intuition” (which relies on observing your inner state) cannot be used to support claims about the world outside of your mind: that would be like saying that a guy’s intuition that everyone is out to get him is evidence that there actually is a conspiracy against him.

 

[Soulewolf]

If the atheist can prove that in principle there is no way of proving Gods existence and that his existence is not clearly seen in the thing that are made, then it follows necessarily that either Catholicism is false or the bible has errors in it.

What say ye?

Logically it is not the atheists job to disprove god. It is the Theists job to prove god to the atheists, then it is the atheists job to disprove that argument. otherwise it is a fallacy.

St. Paul is wrong in the sense that just because an explanation for existence “exists” (lol) does not make someone ignorant for believing there is a better explanation.

For instance, the ancient Romans had a model of the solar system through which they could accurately predict where a celestial body would be on at a given time. Of course this model was wrong (even though it gave correct predictions) because it had earth at the center. Does that make it ignorance to believe that this model was not 100 percent accurate?

 

[ManOnFire]

Too many atheists choose more ego-inflating easy victory intermediate level arguments instead of arguing Ultimate Truth (the begining of time and space). If a fifth-dimensional First Creator (God) does not exist and has never existed, then there IS NO beginning of time and space. This would mean that time and space has always existed. Space would be merely going through infinitesimal shape changes with foolish humans with too much time on their hands and not enough high level prioritites chasing after a beginning that doesn’t exist. How delusional is your faith and belief to keep looking for a beginning that you have admitted doesn’t exist??? (In some ways, I doubt that atheism exists, because they certainly must have a strong faith, hope, belief in order to be trying to find the answer to something they don’t believe exists [Ultimate Truth]) “No beginning” of time and space is not logical. If a Creator doesn’t exist, then why waste your time looking???

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Logically it is not the atheists job to disprove god.

Where do i say that its the atheists Job to disprove the existence of God?