Why should people believe Catholicism is true?

[Nixbits]

KildareBrigid:

I would encourage them to really look into the history of the main religions. Discover the historical facts behind them and it will be clear that Christianity has the evidence to back it up.

KildareBrigid:

bethinking.org/jesus/anci…istian-sources is a starting point.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. But the website for which you provided a link as a starting point is indicative of what will be found from further study.

This website, by its own admission, shows that the evidence from Pliny the Younger and Lucian is only of the practices of the early Christians, not about Jesus himself. Josephus and, to a lesser extent, the Babylonian Talmud only provides evidence that a notable individual called Jesus was executed and that his followers continued to believe. Only by a speculative interpretation of Tacitus is there the suggestion that the early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead.

None of this is evidence of what Jesus did or that He was the Son of God, but only that the early Christians had certain beliefs and practices. I don’t see how it can be argued that this evidence demonstrates that Christianity is true compared, for example, with the evidence of the beliefs of early Muslims or early Buddhists.

 

[Nixbits]

ahs:

Sure. I am speaking of those works attributed to Homer. This is not to say they tell a true story, but that no one questions whether current copies represent the original. What material do we use to conclude that, when I read the Iliad, I am reading the “Iliad” as Homer intended it?

I don’t think I can agree with you. Even a cursory glance at information about the Iliad, for example, shows that there is a lot of scholarly debate about the accuracy of how the story was passed down through the oral tradition and about the comparison of the various extant manuscripts, not to mention questioning of the identity of the author(s) and the historicity of the accounts of the Trojan war. I don’t think that anyone in our present time can conclude that the Iliad, as it is available to us today, can be considered absolutely authentic.

ahs:

As to its historic reliability (whether it is historically accurate), I have seen zero evidence from any historian, ever, to refute it’s historic authenticity or reliability.

But what evidence have you found that supports its historic authenticity? What is the evidence that supports a world-wide flood, the captivity of the Jews in Egypt, the raising from the dead of many holy people when Jesus died on the cross? A lack of refuting evidence does not equate to support for historical accuracy.

ahs:

Also you avoided my question regarding whether the Bible contradicts itself:

The apparent contradictions in the Bible are many and well-documented. I don’t think that atheists and those trying to convince them of the truth of the Catholic faith are likely to agree on matters of Biblical interpretation.

(Maybe you didn’t know it, but the collection of writings within the Bible were historical documents before they were “The Bible”.)

I certainly wasn’t aware that the various books of the Bible were intended as records of historical fact, if that’s what you mean. I was under the impression that the original purpose was to convey various aspects about faith in God. I remain unconvinced that books such as Psalms, Proverbs or Revelations, for example, were intended to teach history.

ahs:

Yes, I have faith that my wife will do her best to raise our children. I don’t need to see evidence to know that this is true.

Forgive me, but I don’t think that this is truly your position. I expect that you have a reasonable expectation that your wife will raise your children well, based upon many years of evidence of what sort of person your wife is. This is not the same as ‘faith’ in the context we were discussing. If you had faith that your wife would raise your children well, having never met or spoken to or had any direct information about your wife, then I would agree that you had faith. I would similarly consider such faith to be unjustified.

 

[Perplexity]

In the case of the atheist, he can look at all sides. What he CANNOT do is claim a contradiction without presupposing the “correct” understanding of a book he didn’t write, and simultaneously rejecting the understanding of that group which he is arguing against.

The atheist will rely on the same sort of authority that you relied on when you interpreted the Bible and history in order to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. In particular, she’ll rely on secondary sources like expert Biblical scholars and historians and reason in determining when these experts are jumping to conclusions, relying on unwarranted assumptions or making cogent points.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Thank you all for the responses thus far, but I have to admit that in my experience with atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious they raise certain common objections to the things many of you are stating here.

Here’s a few objections they commonly raise:

-They say the Bible is not reliable as a source of truth and contradicts itself and so cannot be inerrant/inspired by God (they will point to things like the Census of Quirinius, the different genealogies in Luke and Matthew, the lack of historical evidence for the Exodus, etc. as reasons not to believe the Bible)

• They say there is no credible evidence for the Resurrection and other miracles of Jesus. They don’t consider four gospels as enough reliable evidence to accept such an extraordinary claim.
• They challenge the very worthiness of faith itself as a basis for belief. They will say that one should follow the evidence and not believe in spite of a lack of evidence.

Everything they say (until your last point) is logical (at least to an unbeliever.)

Therefore, the main thrust of your apologetics needs to address how false their last point is. IOW, even scientists do not literally prove to themselves everything leading up to whatever field of study they are in. No. They take on faith (human faith) that everything up to what is the current standard of knowledge is true and factual without demanding proof.

That analogy will also hold true in Religion.

Therefore, since there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God (at least not empirically) one must sift through what human facts we do have in ascertaining the PROBABILITY for the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[kdbueno]

The foundation of the one true universally known church is based on infallible and divine consciential Magisterial divine infallibility.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Personally, I enjoy reading archeology.

And I also enjoy reading up on the Shroud of Turin, which is non biblical.

So, what is it, the Shroud, exactly?

What is the image.

 

[Barricade]

Everything they say (until your last point) is logical (at least to an unbeliever.)

Therefore, the main thrust of your apologetics needs to address how false their last point is. IOW, even scientists do not literally prove to themselves everything leading up to whatever field of study they are in. No. ** They take on faith (human faith) that everything up to what is the current standard of knowledge is true and factual without demanding proof.**

This isn’t exactly the same though, there’s a difference between acting on faith and simply building on what has already been proven. Every biologist does not have to re-discover and re-verify the existence of the parts of a cell on their own before moving on to new discoveries. They build on what has already been discovered, and if these discoveries are indeed true and valid they can be re-verified and replicated.

Moreover, there’s an important distinction between belief based on faith versus belief based on blind faith or unreasonable faith. Blind faith is something I think we would agree is not a good basis for belief otherwise everyone would just believe the first religion that told them they needed to have faith and they slam the door shut on the true option by refusing to listen to any compelling case for Catholicism.

Therefore, since there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God (at least not empirically) one must sift through what human facts we do have in ascertaining the PROBABILITY for the existence or non-existence of God.

Well the Church teaches that we can come to knowledge of the existence of God through the use of natural reason, faith comes into play on issues related to divine revelation. But coming to such knowledge is not phrased in conventional scientific terms, it seems more along the lines of presenting reasonable and convincing arguments that the existence of a God is likely.

However in my experience, arguing for the existence of God is the easiest part of this journey. It gets difficult when it comes to trying to persuade someone of the truth of Catholicism versus other religions or no religion at all. There are people who believe in a God but simply do not see the fulness of truth in any religion. What can be said in the hopes of convincing these people?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Barricade:

This isn’t exactly the same though, there’s a difference between acting on faith and simply building on what has already been proven. Every biologist does not have to re-discover and re-verify the existence of the parts of a cell on their own before moving on to new discoveries. They build on what has already been discovered, and if these discoveries are indeed true and valid they can be re-verified and replicated.

It may be more analogous than you think. Scientists KNOW that everything that went before them is NOT necessarily empirically proven, but deemed most probable given the state of knowledge at that time. So faith in a given line of thought is still necessary. That is why scientists disagree with one another.

But you are right, it is not exactly the same, but is merely an analogy to help a non-believer realize that in this life faith is not only necessary to function on just about any level, but even permeates scientific affairs.

What you are trying to do is rehabilitate faith and illustrate that it is a necessary part of ordinary life. Faith is built on reason, but at the same time it helps advance reason.

Credulity (faith in everything without any thought) is not what we are talking about.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Mere Christianity

by C.S. Lewis

 

[ahs]

The apparent contradictions in the Bible are many and well-documented…

Which only begs the question yet again.

I certainly wasn’t aware that the various books of the Bible were intended as records of historical fact, if that’s what you mean. I was under the impression that the original purpose was to convey various aspects about faith in God. I remain unconvinced that books such as Psalms, Proverbs or Revelations, for example, were intended to teach history.

Right. And unless we agreed to a common definition of “historical” for our discussion, we’d just end up talking past each other. Another mistake (on every side) in such discussions.

Forgive me, but I don’t think that this is truly your position.

Why does that matter? And why weren’t my other 2 points there relevant?

 

[steve_b]

When conversing with people who don’t identify with any religion, and** may be atheist, agnostic,** or otherwise, they will often **ask why they should believe Catholicism is true.
**
What are some arguments for why someone should believe Catholicism is true?

History #34

However in the bigger sense, Re: faith vs no faith

IMV there is no greater example than the following to answer that question. Jesus Himself gave it to us. John 6:46-68

1. 
   *]God in the flesh taught His followers face to face, the truth they needed to know and believe.
   *]Jesus knew in advance they would walk away, knowing they did not believe, but it didn’t stop Him from giving them the message
   *]Bottom line even God doesn’t override free will He gives EVERYONE. Could He do it? Yes. Will He? No. Free will is what makes us culpable for what we do.
   *]Jesus turned to His apostles and asked are you going to leave me too? No further explanation from Jesus was needed. for them. They believed.
   
   Aquinas put that example into words.
   
   “For those who have faith no explanation is necessary. For those without faith no explanation is sufficient.”
   
   Jesus bread of life discourse, also shows us how we are to deal with those WE come across, who have no faith. We give them the message, we don’t force anything. If they won’t believe, we let them go. Just like Jesus let them go.
   
   There’s an interesting quote from Ezekiel, Re: Sins of omission, sins of commission, & consequences
   
   Ezekial 3:,
   
   17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life. 20 Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.”