Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[Vera_Ljuba]

The fact that all people do not subscribe to the same moral system is not proof that there are not moral principles that could be universal.

Is this what you mean: “The fact that all people do not subscribe to the same CULINARY system is NOT proof that there are NO absolute, universal CULINARY principles.” Neither ethics nor aesthetics rests on universal foundations. The same dish is too salty for one, too bland for another and just perfect for the third person. The same weight is too heavy for one and very light for the next… The same music is wonderful for one and a cacophony for others. The morality of lions is not the same as the morality of the lambs.

But it has been demonstrated time and again that some acts are moral everywhere and some acts are immoral everywhere.

Demonstrated? By whom, and where? Asserted, yes, demonstrated, no.

The life of a Christian is fully open to the legitimate pleasures of life.

And who says what is “legitimate”? Only God could do that, but unfortunately God is silent. And no one… but NO ONE is entitled to speak for God.

The so-called “uncertain pleasures of eternity” are not to be lightly regarded, especially if it turns out that they are truly certain, and a good deal more pleasurable than one could have imagined.

If they are “truly certain”, then you should be able to prove it. A guided tour of heaven and hell would be a good way to start - so we would have actual knowledge of what to expect. Ah, and please spare me of the nonsense that if we would KNOW the result of our choices that would “rob” us of our freedom to choose. As if free will would rest upon ignorance. Of all the attempts to rationalize the “silentium Dei” (silence of God), this is probably the worst one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is this what you mean: “The fact that all people do not subscribe to the same CULINARY system is NOT proof that there are NO absolute, universal CULINARY principles.” Neither ethics nor aesthetics rests on universal foundations. The same dish is too salty for one, too bland for another and just perfect for the third person. The same weight is too heavy for one and very light for the next… The same music is wonderful for one and a cacophony for others. The morality of lions is not the same as the morality of the lambs.

Demonstrated? By whom, and where? Asserted, yes, demonstrated, no.

And who says what is “legitimate”? Only God could do that, but unfortunately God is silent. And no one… but NO ONE is entitled to speak for God.

If they are “truly certain”, then you should be able to prove it. A guided tour of heaven and hell would be a good way to start - so we would have actual knowledge of what to expect. Ah, and please spare me of the nonsense that if we would KNOW the result of our choices that would “rob” us of our freedom to choose. As if free will would rest upon ignorance. Of all the attempts to rationalize the “silentium Dei” (silence of God), this is probably the worst one.

Nowhere here do you answer anything I said in post # 37.

So I’ll take it you must agree with everything in that post?

If so, it is indeed subjective on your part to assert there is no God, and no visible representation of the will of God on earth. So if you are wrong, you are terribly wrong.

Your reference to culinary principles is childish. Please try to reason like an adult.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Nowhere here do you answer anything I said in post # 37.

Oh, I did, you just did not get it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oh, I did, you just did not get it.

:tsktsk:

 

[ffg]

I’m not sure if ‘convince’ is a goal (from the human perspective).

Even God waits patiently for someone to open the door.

The human element just needs to be open to sharing, even if the same life experience, over and over, as many times as asked.

Even if the CC holds the ‘fullness of truth’, banging someone over the head with facts typically has a result of a headache.

Sometimes it is just a matter of knowing where to look.

The evidence for God will be found in that which God desires…

We need to check our hearts, are we really open to the possibility God loves us?

 

[o_mlly]

…

Would arguments be more compelling if they attacked the authority behind, or pointed out the existential irrelevance of, the modern world’s morals?

Professor John Hallowell’s critique of his own profession’s decline into modernism made just such arguments:

• The loss of a sense of transcendence
• The dethroning of reason in favor of subjective feeling
• The obsession with questions of empirical and formal technique, or questions of “how,” rather than questions of substance and purpose, of “why.”
• The ontological assumption behind all critical thought is that reality consists of two distinct and totally separate modes of existence: the subjective and the objective.
• The chief epistemological assumption of modern, critical thinking is that the fundamental criterion of true knowledge is the “factual” clarity, or explicitness, of the objects of our perceptions, visual or conceptual.
• Modernity’s equation of truth with clarity can therefore be understood largely in terms of an overwhelming temptation to fall from unclear, ambiguous truth into clear untruth.’"
• This leads to the modern insistence upon total clarity and explicitness in the formal procedures and inferential rules, inductive or deductive, by which we arrive at our clear and explicit conclusions.
• Therefore, that which appears on first impression to be subjective, spiritual, personal, or qualitative can be “rescued” from epistemological and ontological oblivion only if it can be explained in objective, physical, impersonal, or quantitative (“value-free,” or “neutral”) terms.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this what you mean: “The fact that all people do not subscribe to the same CULINARY system is NOT proof that there are NO absolute, universal CULINARY principles.” Neither ethics nor aesthetics rests on universal foundations. The same dish is too salty for one, too bland for another and just perfect for the third person. The same weight is too heavy for one and very light for the next… The same music is wonderful for one and a cacophony for others. The morality of lions is not the same as the morality of the lambs.

With this type of reasoning, there is no way that you could tell a man: you were wrong for dragging your wife around by her hair because she burnt your toast.

That would be as ridiculous as saying: you are wrong for liking turnips.

Now, I’m 100% certain that you do believe that it’s wrong to drag your wife around by her hair because she burnt his toast.

And that, my friend, is because you understand that there are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.

 

[TarkanAttila]

What really irks me is how you divert responsibility. Not the Church and it’s appalling behaviour in the past is the root cause of this anger and those memes; no, the fault lies with the atheist himself who has a natural tendency to hate the Church or want to be disgusted by something. You really shouldn’t exculpate the Church that easily.

You have evidence to the contrary, then?

So you would say most atheists can look at all the good in Catholicism, admit it, admit that there is evil in the Church, yet are willing to set both aside so as to look at the premises of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, as she understands them? And only then say that, weighing them against atheism (not secular humanism, captialism, communism, Marxism, etc etc etc, but just the premise that there is no God), they find the truth lacking in the Church’s claims?

Because, frankly, putting aside the atrocities done in the name of atheism in the past 100 years, and putting aside the scientific progress made under Enlightenment thinking, I do not think I could ever honestly be an atheist, even though I have to admit focussing on the world, here and now, has produced a lot of good (even from my perspective).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

With this type of reasoning, there is no way that you could tell a man: you were wrong for dragging your wife around by her hair because she burnt your toast.

You are wrong. I can tell anything to that person… he will not accept it. (If he is a Christian, he can even quote a few well-selected lines from the Bible as supporting evidence. ) Just like I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with masturbation, and you will reject it. Or you can tell me that it is mortal sin to have oral sex (all the way to completion) and I will just shrug it off.

Now what can I do? Call the police and let them handle the guy. That will not “prove” that he is (morally) wrong. Just like YOU calling the Inquisition and burn me at the stakes would not “prove” that you are (morally) right. There are many ethical systems. Some are more widely accepted than others. But the circle of acceptance is not a proof that the more widely accepted ones are “right”, and the rest is “wrong”. Why? Because “morality” is subjective.

Now, I’m 100% certain that you do believe that it’s wrong to drag your wife around by her hair because she burnt his toast.

Yes, that is my OPINION. What of it?

And that, my friend, is because you understand that there are some things that are right and there are some things that are wrong.

How do you plan to “prove” this?

 

[Bradski]

Because, frankly, putting aside the atrocities done in the name of atheism in the past 100 years…

In the NAME of atheism? What the…?

 

[PRmerger]

You are wrong.

Really? I am…wrong?



'nuff said.

“You are wrong for liking turnips”…said no one ever.

Absolutists, however…do say that people are wrong.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Really? I am…wrong?



'nuff said.

“You are wrong for liking turnips”…said no one ever.

Absolutists, however…do say that people are wrong.

Looks like that you cannot tell the difference between “you are mistaken”, “you are incorrect”, “you are FACTUALLY wrong” and “you are MORALLY wrong”. That is OK. I am not surprised any more. If someone does not understand the difference between “absolute” and “relative” or “objective” and “subjective”… then there are no more surprises.

 

[Cheiron]

So you would say most atheists can look at all the good in Catholicism, admit it, admit that there is evil in the Church, yet are willing to set both aside so as to look at the premises of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, as she understands them?

Yes, I think most atheists can do that. The behaviour of the clergy (good or bad) proves something about the morality of Catholicism, but nothing about whether God actually exists or not.

And only then say that, weighing them against atheism (not secular humanism, captialism, communism, Marxism, etc etc etc, but just the premise that there is no God), they find the truth lacking in the Church’s claims?

Weighing against atheism would not be a rational approach, because the whole point of considering Catholicism is also to investigate the possibility that atheism is wrong. Catholicism should be judged by the evidence.

Because, frankly, putting aside the atrocities done in the name of atheism in the past 100 years,

?

and putting aside the scientific progress made under Enlightenment thinking, I do not think I could ever honestly be an atheist, even though I have to admit focussing on the world, here and now, has produced a lot of good (even from my perspective).

I don’t think the morality or consequences of atheism are good measurements to judge the validity of atheism.

 

[Aloysium]

The words relative and absolute, objective and subjective have to do with aspects of our relational nature. Something real “me”, exists connected to something “other”. This triad forms the reality of our being-in-the-world.

The guy wakes up, hung over, having to go into work where he’s treated without the respect he deserves, to bring food on the table for people whom he doesn’t like and who don’t like him. Eliciting fear can be better that getting respect because you have control. The toast is burnt again. How outrageous! “When is this %*^€~|$ @{ *%}<|!£ ever going to learn!!! The nerve to treat me this way!!” After all he’s done, this is how he is treated, with a totally uncaring disrespect. He grabs her from the kids’ room by the hair and drags her to the kitchen to witness her offence

This scenario did not happen out of the blue one morning. It took years, a lifetime of abuse witnessed, experienced and doled out, festering and erupting in these episodes of violence.

It is always about relationships, the world as it is presented to us, how it reflects back who and what we are and ultimately what we do with it. What we do affects the nature of our relationships. What we put into them, determines who we are and this transforms all of them. We get back what we put into them. What we do transforms who we are, how we understand the other and the other, him/herself.

There is a structure to those actions-reactions that allows us to understand situations such as the one described above. Call it morality, karma; there are clear consequences to what we do. Those consequences have to do with the actual act, its intent and the circumstance in which it is carried out.

There is a basic dignity to the person which may not be acknowledged by those around them. The resulting wound can be infected by sin, the lashing out against an uncaring hostile world. Blind to the needs of other and trying to assert control, behaving thusly has its consequences, making true the ugliness of one’s own soul. Such hurts can make us more understanding but may alternatively blind us to the needs of others. But uncaring of others, comes with it a growing sense of our being less deserving of care. We can become ever more angry, resentful, vigilant and touchy about any sign of disrespect. From bad to worse, the person in their relationships spiral downward. Seeking control, (s)he is more and more out of control, until the greater society steps in and expulsion is the outcome.

The is an absolute reality, and it is relational in nature. It is on this basis that we perceive, understand, feel about and act in the world. Our actions do have a direct effect no only on the object but we ourselves and how we relate in general. The rules that define this process can be understood as justice or dharma, and represent the moral ordering of the universe, which is grounded in the love and compassion of its Creator, from whom the further we stray, the more miserable we become.

 

[goout]

Catholic’s don’t convince because we have left behind our intellectual tradition.
This age is stuck in a rationalism that is peculiar to it.
Since thinking rationally is supposedly highly valued, and the Catholic Church has the strongest intellectual tradition to be found, we need to understand it and articulate it.

In my opinion, Catholicism has bought into a protestant model of apologetics in many cases. Immediately we go to Scripture and other religious arguments to justify our beliefs.

That’s not necessary and is counterproductive when speaking to a people who are stuck in rationalism.
Our faith has to make sense in this age. It does make sense.
The deceit surrounding gender is a perfect example. A religious argument is not needed to show the absurdity of gender deceit, but rather simply the ability to think rationally with discipline. (oddly enough, the age of radical reason has less of it )
This is a good talk by Bp Barron. It’s long but worthwhile.
wordonfire.org/resources/lecture/faithful-and-intelligent-the-catholic-intellectual-tradition-and-you/4705/

 

[TarkanAttila]

Yes, I think most atheists can do that. The behaviour of the clergy (good or bad) proves something about the morality of Catholicism, but nothing about whether God actually exists or not.

I disagree with the notion that the bad behaviour of 2% of a few thousand members of an organisation with over a billion members tells us whether an organisation is moral or immoral, but I do agree with your final premise (i.e, that it doesn’t have anything to say about the objective existence of God).

Weighing against atheism would not be a rational approach, because the whole point of considering Catholicism is also to investigate the possibility that atheism is wrong. Catholicism should be judged by the evidence.

Yes. Just as, in a court, a man is judged either to have sufficient evidence to prove he has done something, or judged to have insufficient evidence. So the action we are determining in the courtroom is whether such a person has done the awful crime of existing. We, the awful plaintiffs, wish to accuse Him of this most horrible crime of existing, and produce evidences big and small to convict God of this action.

Suffer me for a second if I find it rather funny that you are His defense attorneys, protecting Him from the accusations of that most abominable crime for a God… existence.

It can be rationally judged, just as any other person can be judged to have done any other act, from existing to murder to founding a nation.

? (I take this to mean you don’t believe atheists have ever been responsible for atrocities.)

We must be willing to admit that our position can be, and has been, used by good men and evil to further the ends, selfish and selfless, of all manner of men. I have no problem admitting that some bishops were corrupt politicians, or some used the collar to seduce.

I have no problem with admitting this, because the inverse of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that any ideology, religion, or philosophy may be used for good or evil. Including atheism. Including Catholicism.

We have had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, Benedict IX (three times!), and Milo Yianoppoulos (even if he is fabulous). Atheists stand in the same crowd as Enver Hoxha, Andrew Anglin (and all the Daily Stormer), and this lady.

Point being, you don’t lose the debate just because you admit you have bad people on your side.

I don’t think the morality or consequences of atheism are good measurements to judge the validity of atheism.

I agree, as I said in the bit you quoted. Pity you didn’t read it more thoroughly.

But let’s remind ourselves of the good people on either side, shall we?

We have had, for example, the Missionaries of Charity, Georges LeMaitre, and Mother Angelica.

Atheists have these guys, Stephen Hawking, and George Carlin.

And, of course, in both ranks, there are many, many others. Because at the end of the day something is true about both atheism and Catholicism: we are both human organisations, at least in part.

So, putting the human element aside, let’s instead challenge our premises:

You believe there is no God.

I believe there is one. (We can challenge this on another thread, but I insist there is no other way to test whether God exists than by trying Him in the same way we’d try a man for murder or theft.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the NAME of atheism? What the…?

Hitler

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”

 

[Cheiron]

Yes. Just as, in a court, a man is judged either to have sufficient evidence to prove he has done something, or judged to have insufficient evidence. So the action we are determining in the courtroom is whether such a person has done the awful crime of existing. We, the awful plaintiffs, wish to accuse Him of this most horrible crime of existing, and produce evidences big and small to convict God of this action.

Suffer me for a second if I find it rather funny that you are His defense attorneys, protecting Him from the accusations of that most abominable crime for a God… existence.

It can be rationally judged, just as any other person can be judged to have done any other act, from existing to murder to founding a nation.

I love that analogy. I first heard it on the Atheist Experience.

We must be willing to admit that our position can be, and has been, used by good men and evil to further the ends, selfish and selfless, of all manner of men. I have no problem admitting that some bishops were corrupt politicians, or some used the collar to seduce.

I have no problem with admitting this, because the inverse of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that any ideology, religion, or philosophy may be used for good or evil. Including atheism. Including Catholicism.

We have had Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, Benedict IX (three times!), and Milo Yianoppoulos (even if he is fabulous). Atheists stand in the same crowd as Enver Hoxha, Andrew Anglin (and all the Daily Stormer), and this lady.

Point being, you don’t lose the debate just because you admit you have bad people on your side.

I was surprised about the words “in the name of atheism”. They suggest there is a logical pathway from atheism to the horrible crimes some atheists committed. Atheism is amoral; it doesn’t contain any imperatives to do evil, nor any imperatives to do good. That’s the difference with religion. Atheism is morally neutral.

So I agree there are good and bad atheists, but I don’t agree that atheism leads necessarily to an evil or good worldview.

I agree, as I said in the bit you quoted. Pity you didn’t read it more thoroughly.

But let’s remind ourselves of the good people on either side, shall we?

We have had, for example, the Missionaries of Charity, Georges LeMaitre, and Mother Angelica.

Atheists have these guys, Stephen Hawking, and George Carlin.

And, of course, in both ranks, there are many, many others. Because at the end of the day something is true about both atheism and Catholicism: we are both human organisations, at least in part.

So, putting the human element aside, let’s instead challenge our premises:

You believe there is no God.

I believe there is one. (We can challenge this on another thread, but I insist there is no other way to test whether God exists than by trying Him in the same way we’d try a man for murder or theft.)

That seems to be the best way to me too. And yes, perhaps it’s better if that topic deserves a separate thread.

 

[goout]

Hitler

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Stalin

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”

Right.

The proposition is “everybody but atheists kill in the name of beliefs”.
Because atheists have an easy out in claiming no beliefs. Which is just silly.

So, of course Stalin was an atheist, but it was just accidental that an atheist murdered more human beings that probably everyone else combined.

 

[goout]

I was surprised about the words “in the name of atheism”. They suggest there is a logical pathway from atheism to the horrible crimes some atheists committed. Atheism is amoral; it doesn’t contain any imperatives to do evil, nor any imperatives to do good. That’s the difference with religion. Atheism is morally neutral.

Could you explain to us how any human being or any human belief system can be morally neutral?
Given that morality is “the evaluation of human acts”.

Surely you are not claiming that atheists do not evaluate acts.