Are Atheists Searching for Truth?
I had an epiphany in an unexpected place the other day. I was sitting on a Kawasaki Mule by a lake holding a sleeping toddler and watching the other kids play on kayaks. It was late in the day and I was sipping a Yuengling Lager while reading St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles on a Kindle reader. I haven’t read the whole thing, not even close, but the work is an excellent apologetics instruction manual, so I study parts of it when I can.
To believers and non-believers alike, St. Thomas thought it was important to first demonstrate certain compelling arguments for the existence of God, the things that can be known by reason alone, because this prepares the way to assent to the revealed truths of Christian faith. His formula is something like this: 1) We know God exists, 2) Christ is God become man, 3) therefore, what Christ revealed is true, but these truths of faith (Incarnation, Trinity, Sacraments) are above reason so we needed the revelation for the sake of our salvation. The apologist’s task is to show that the truths of faith are not un-reasonable.
In the beginning, St. Thomas explains exhaustively why and how man searches for truth, and it struck me while basking in the glory of nature enjoying man-made marvels of technology, that anyone who searches for truth – atheist, agnostic, doubter, or believer – is searching for God because God is Truth Itself.
Our knowledge is ordered, and a genuine search for truth demands that we respect what is beyond us. As St. Thomas put it, “Just as, therefore, it would he the height of folly for a simple person to assert that what a philosopher proposes is false on the ground that he himself cannot understand it, so (and even more so) it is the acme of stupidity for a man to suspect as false what is divinely revealed through the ministry of the angels simply because it cannot be investigated by reason.”
Atheists generally revere scientific and technological achievement, and would balk if some unlearned person tossed aside the truths learned from Modern Science just so he can write a New Science according to his own worldview. Yet they willingly remain ignorant about the highest science, the science whose object is God, Catholic doctrine. Someone who refuses to experience faith has no empirical evidence of his own to judge its veracity. That leads me to wonder: Are atheists searching for truth, or something else?
—–
The whole work is translated here alongside the Latin.
Category: Catholic Free Press, Featured, Secularism
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Yet they willingly remain ignorant about the highest science, the science whose object is God, Catholic doctrine. Someone who refuses to experience faith has no empirical evidence of his own to judge its veracity. That leads me to wonder: Are atheists searching for truth, or something else?
A Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu could say the same of you. You didn’t need to experience those faiths to deem them wrong. Many atheists are ignorant of the claims of world religions (just like most people, regardless of faith), but many have also rejected Catholicism because we don’t believe that its claims are true. Don’t write us all off as stupidly and ignorantly rejecting Catholicism, because it’s an insult to those of us who have done so out of reason.
Actually in the development of Catholic doctrine, the philosophies of Muslims and Jews were considered. St. Thomas addresses this exhaustively in the work I reference here. There are reasons to reject all the other religions as false, or only partly true, and the reasons are based on what those religions actually teach.
I have never seen any atheist compilation that actually 1) articulated Catholic doctrine correctly, and then 2) refuted it. They all make up something and refute the pretend doctrine.
You tease us with pics of paradise. No fair! But no worries either, soon I will be on my way to the beautiful white beaches of the Emerald Coast for my yearly pilgrimage. I believe Frank Sheed will be joining me thank you very much Stacy.
Anyway… I think it depends on what kind of atheist is in you are asking. Let’s take P.Z. Meyer or Richard Dawkins for example. As smart and brilliant as those two jerks are they can not fathom the richness of life with out having it layed out in front on them. Anyone who dares question their authority will find themselves “crucified” if you will and labeled a simpleton. The truth, if there is any to be had, will soon be found if they keep and it will be all physical and materiel. Dawkins however, if you read carefully leaves himself some wiggle room for error should he make one. P.Z. … just a jerk.
If you ask someone like me, I would say yes, we are searching for truth, at least those of us interested. Little nuggets of truth can be found almost anywhere. The problem is we don’t what they look like exactly and how many there are and where they are all at. My problem lies with the one or ones who say they are in possession of said nuggets. Those ones are the ones who will impose the truth with force on anyone at any cost.
And it’s not just churches on the right who will do this, the same type threat comes from the leftists who BTW are trying disparately to destroy the very foundation of America where we will no longer be free to make such inquires into such matter as God whether you believe or not.
and when religious people start calling well known atheists “jerks” and making hyperbolic statements like “leftists are ruining the world” is precisely when I stop listening to whatever truths they proclaim.
Will you be voting for Mitt this November, Andrew? Oh Goodie! You will be fulfilling a 150yo Mormon prophesy upon his election to the Executive Office! Finally the true God has revealed himself in the tablets of Moroni!
Andrew, thank you! As always, there’s wisdom in your words. I appreciate your perspective, and I’m glad you share it. I read your other comments too, but didn’t have anything to add. Thank you for them.
Paradise? Yes, it is. Totally. Emerald Coast? Wow, that sounds wonderful. Enjoy your reading material.
Another good piece and once again have provided me with more reading material ‘Summa contra Gentiles’ to which I have now saved the link. I do hope you will share photos of paradise as the seasons change into fall, winter and back to spring time.
I commented, but I think it may have gone into spam jail due to some (mild) poor word choice on my part…oops.
Oops, Michelle, I don’t see it? I’ll double check though. So sorry.
Hmm, maybe I only thought I submitted it and closed the wrong window. Not a problem!
I pretty much only said that yes, it’s great that you believe Catholicism to be true, and great that you feel that other faiths’ claims have been answered (really – not being sarcastic!). But everyone else, except those who are apathetic, feels the same about their faith. We all think that we’re right, and everyone else just isn’t seeing (or is refusing to see) what we see. It’s important to acknowledge that other people aren’t Catholic for a reason, just like you are Catholic for a reason.
Also, doctrine isn’t the real issue for a lot of us – I know that I do disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, but the real issue is actually the existence of god. I haven’t yet heard an argument that I find convincing, and so doctrine is currently just something that’s fun to argue about, but it’s irrelevant to my (and probably most other atheists’) nonbelief.
Anyway, gorgeous house and lake. I wouldn’t blame you if you quit blogging altogether just to sit by the lake all day!
“that other people aren’t Catholic for a reason”
Michelle, as you recognize of the value in peoples reasoning ability while they disagree, could not the opposite be important. As you say the issue for atheists is not disagreement over doctrine (that is only ammunition) but what we do agree on. All Christians, Jews, Muslims and some other minor religions all agree that God exists as a minimum! Where does that come from? Does the article sited answer that for you?
“Little nuggets of truth can be found almost anywhere.”
Andrew, if God is truth, does this mean that you have discoverd pieces of God laying about?
Yes you might say that Howard. I don’t deny that there is a fundamental truth to the universe. I just deny that one person or group of people can lay claim to that truth.
What if that one person is Jesus Christ and you follow him?
Man, I knew you were gonna hit me with that one the second I hit the submit button. Let me get my thoughts from the past in order on the way home from for this one and later tonight I’ll submit it.
Am I reading your mind or are you readng mine!
I read a article the other day of a athiest group out of WI going after the city of Steubenville, OH because part of thier city emblem has the Cross and dome from Franciscan University in it. At the end of the article was this sentence:
“Nothing scares atheists more than religion, and no religion scares them more than Catholicism,” ~ Catholic League President Bill Donohue.
Why don’t we see athiest on the attack against the Jewish or Muslim faith beliefs?
In relation to Mjeck’s statement – As for Romney, we’er not looking to elect a ‘preacher in chief’ but the President of the US. Just as in John Kennedy, I do not see his religious belief being a problem.
You have not seen an atheist attack against Judaism or Islam? Apparently you have not read Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Acharya S., etc. The attacks against Islam are much more vitriolic…as for religion scaring atheists, that’s quite a non-sequitur. Religion does not scare me…I just don’t need it to explain anything.
Gwen, I’m not making a hyperbolic statement. Nikita Khrushchev boasted that the Soviet Union could destroy America (the West in general?) without firing a single shot. Or something to that nature I’m not a historian though. Our current president and his left wing extremist Democrat buddies have no love what so ever for the U.S. Constitution. I fear Khrushchev might have been a sharp shooter with a silver bullet only time will tell….
Anyway so… uh… yeah I’m calling them jerks. P.Z. ousted one of his own over at FTB because he didn’t tow the line. I watched that with mild disinterest thinking to myself the whole (short) while of it that most of these people are nothing but hacks. There is no actual discussion of lack of god on FTB. Of course I don’t waste a lot of my time there so I could be wrong. Really I just go there for the recipes that that Yankee jerk puts up from time to time. They’re really good, you should try them some time. If it makes you feel any better Gwen, I think Rev. Creflo Dollar is a scumbag. Gwen?, Hey Gwen! GWEN!?!?! HEY are you listening to me?!
mjeck, Yes I am voting for Mitt Romney. And you know as well as I do that the whole Mormon Prophesy thing is a bunch bullpoop. Ok so he’s Mormon and Mormons are wierd. Would you decline watching Mission Impossible movies because Tom Cruise is a firm believer of Scientology? I doubt it. So why are you worried about Mitt? Is he going to slap you in the face with his magic underwear and turn you into a Mormon? Yep I can see it now there is going to be magic underwear wearing goon squads marching across America dragging people out of their homes in the middle of the night! Just like Hitlers Brown Shirts except with Magic Underwear. Magic Brown Underwear! Get it!? Magic? Brown Underwear? Mormon? Bullpoop? Get it?! come on Mjeck I know there’s a little smile floating around in that sarcastic little brain of yours…..
No, what worries you about Mitt is that he brings to the table; value, integrity, honesty(as much so as a politician can muster that is) and quality traits that this country needs and I am for that. He learned all that from his Religion and there is not much you or anyone else can do about it. Of course anyone who is elected into any position are going to bring what have learned to the table so why are you worried so much about Mitt? JFK was A Democrat and a Catholic.
Now I will say that a Christian theocracy is an unnerving proposition for me and under no circumstance would I want to live under such a government. But that’s probably not in the card for this election. I do believe that the philosophic foundations of America and all that is represented by it is at stake and are being undermined by left wing radicals such as Barrack Obama.
I guess that makes me a Right Wing Agnostic. How strange….
Stacy, Emerald Coast is a less redneck way of saying Panama City Beach or Destin or anywhere along the Florida Panhandle. It’s like my Mecca except I point Due South. Thanks for the compliment.
Oh my gosh you found a parallel Latin/English Contra Gentiles!??!!
Bookmarked!
I totally know the feeling of reading bits of Aquinas wherever I happen to be. A single paragraph can occupy me for a week.
Michelle, I don’t think you’re stupid or ignorant. But I do think that your idea of Catholicism is quite distant from what we actually believe.
It is a positive doctrine. I was just reading the summa contra gentiles link that Stacy gave us (I started 20 minutes ago and got sidetracked so I’m back now). St. Thomas said something so obvious. We try to be like someone we love. You KNOW that is true. Have you ever been in a relationship? You pick up one another’s mannerisms, ways of speaking, ways of writing. In fact people sometimes say, wow your mannerisms and habits have changed lately, someone is influencing you, are you in love???
Similarly, if we’re honest we admit that we spend much of our passion trying to come to truth we can rest confidently in. St. Thomas says we do this naturally, and we do it because we desire God who is Truth itself. Which Stacy said above.
Seriously, do we not pursue truth for its own sake? Why do you care what somebody “really meant” by a snide comment. You care because you want to know the truth about where you stand.
And the reason we ache to know the truth is that we have a natural desire to become LIKE GOD properly understood.
Catholicism is a positive doctrine. Without the positive doctrine, the negative feels punitive to you. I wonder if you’ve ever heard Catholicism from the point of view of what it sees in you.
Hint: Catholicism as it really is, sees greatness in you.
Also, your comment about there being many different world religions, each thinking it has the truth. The temptation is to say, since there are so many answers, there must not be a right answer. As a scientist you know better.
There are not 100 random religious theories, all equally wrong.
There are 100 systems of principles of who God is and who man is, and these share a remarkable overlap of content.
Some of these systems are wrong. Some are incomplete. And some are very near to the truth.
See it in that light. Catholicism believes that the person of Christ is the fulfillment of what all religions strive for imperfectly.
Read Acts chapter 17. St. Paul goes out around the pagans and says he totally gets that they are seeking the truth. He encourages and compliments them! Then he says, I can give you the culmination. I’m here to tell you where this search ends.
Howard,
When I was a kid my dad told me that no matter what happen to himself or my mom or anyone else for that matter that I was to follow Jesus. It opened a ton of unanswered questions for me when I was far to young to be concerned with such things as the end of the world.
Me: Ok, got it, follow Jesus…. why?
Dad: I just want you and your sister to be prepared.
Me: For what?
Dad: For whatever may happen.
Me: Why? What’s gonna happen?
Dad: I don’t know….the end of the world maybe.
Me: What does he look like so I’ll know who he is. You told us he doesn’t look like the guy in the pictures.
Dad: You will just know…
You get the picture it went on like that back and forth with no clarity at all. So What’s a kid to do? On one hand I was told never to talk to, follow, get in the cars of, accept candy from strangers. On the other, to follow Jesus who looks nothing at all like the pictures I’m told. To complicate matters, I’m told about Lucifer, who BTW just so happens to have god like powers and can fool us very easily with his godlike powers. So just exactly how am I to know if the guy I’m supposed to follow isn’t really Lucifer just trying to trick me and make off with me to Hell. A complex problem for a kid whose biggest problem at the time was trying to figure out the logistical nightmare of just how many army men and tanks it was going to take to seize Navarone from his best friend.
But wait, the problem gets better! On top of it all God is Mad! Really Really Mad! And Jesus is coming back to destroy the world sometime real soon and he is just as mad. But it’s ok because God and Jesus love you and want you to be safe. Well that’s just great. God is mad, Jesus is mad and my dad says follow the guy who’s going to destroy the world and loves you. And don’t forget about Magic Lucifer either. He’s the whole reason God’s mad in the first place. Well, that and Original Sin. What’s Original Sin? It’s what you, me, we did before we were born to make God mad. Oh. Wait! Before I was born? But how….
Meanwhile… The little gray NAZI’s 2 inches tall, all holed up in a fortified plastic moutain with big yellow cannons and a machine gun nest at the top were taunting me from the other end of the street.
Jeez! I am such a horrible writer and speller
You write with much clarity and feeling Andrew, don’t ask me to approve spelling.
Your father is a great influence in your life even if he has not fully convinced you about this. Not a failure in my eyes. He has pointed you toward something he knows is important but like most of us has trouble expressing it so it becomes real to others. This takes time.
Yes I know what you mean. The most my natural father taught me was to polish my shoes before we went to church every Sunday and to never think of God again all week. I hated to polish shoes! My parents were not a set that one would wish for, but, that brief introduction to Christianity that ended 59 years ago caused me to got through contortions when first trying to enter the Catholic Church in 2009. When it looked like my baptismal certificate could not be found, I refused a conditional baptism (commonly to be re-baptized) and did not complete the very last steps of RCIA and entered in 2010. The purpose of this delay was to contact living family members (that meant I had to tell them I was going to be a Catholic!) in an effort to prove that I was validly baptized. I realized after much embarrassment and deep thought that the whole imbroglio was because I needed to honor the memory of my parents who gave me that gift of baptism and I didn’t want in any way to take that honor away from them. Another reason that got under my skin was when one of the RCIA instructors called it “getting dunked” (full immersion), very offensive. No one in my church has even heard of my parents or me, my relatives went along but didn’t understand, my sister was the only one who sort of did – it was between God and myself.
I could be a relative of the Apostle Thomas (doubting Thomas). I had to stick my figurative finger into Christ’s side before I believed. There is more known in historical writings about Jesus than any other person in antiquity. His life for 33 years and the aftermath has been well documented. As has been said, He did not come to start a religion (he did that) but to show us how to live.
Jeff, I understand all of that, and while I won’t pretend that I fully understand Catholicism, doctrine is not the problem. I do want to clarify – I don’t disbelieve because “there are so many answers, there must not be a right answer”. I don’t believe because I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of god. Like Howard said, all religions agree on it, but until one can convince me that there’s a god at all, doctrine is just a secondary issue.
It can’t be found in a sound bite, it can’t be found by not reading, it can’t be found by ignoring what so many others see.
Tracy,
I’m not an authority on St. Thomas, but I believe that he would say that in light of the understanding that man has a spiritual soul comprised of the intellect and will, all are seeking truth and goodness as thier final end.
My feeling is that the non-believer having not heard the Gospel believes a lie which is that there is no God, that God is not knowable, that God is “X” or, having heard the Gospel, reject the truth that Jesus is the son of the living God.
In both cases, the intellect ascents to a lesser truth which blinds the intellect to the full truth and leads one to desire a lesser good than God as he is revealed in Jesus Christ and proclaimed by the Catholic Church.
You might say that the acceptance of lie is similar to the sin of Adam and Eve and the rejection of the truth is what led to the crucifixion of Jesus. After the fall, pride and willful ignorance can be both a cause and effect of peoples erronious beliefs. I have been guilty of both as a former agnostic now catholic.
AlanR,
I like how you explained that. I have been guilty of it too, and when I started converting it took several years of questioning.
It seems there are two ways to question.
As a friend: You want to know more about someone, so you ask questions and are willing to consider the answers in good faith.
As an enemy: You don’t want to know more, and you ask questions to play “gotcha.”
Maybe I could say that better. It’s important to ask questions in humility, realizing the authority of something greater than yourself. That was when my journey got really exciting and life started making sense. There’s a certain zing! to discovering a little bit more truth.
Thank you Stacy, I really enjoy what you write and thinking about the questions that you bring up. I also like to read the comments from others. It seems like there is a healthy back and forth that your writing leads to. I hope you keep writing.
Alan
Michelle,
“I don’t believe because I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of god.”
Have you studied the arguments? Do you know what they are and can you articulate them?
There’s the argument from design (everything must have a designer), the “first cause” argument (something must have set things into motion), the ontological argument (we can only conceive of what is real). I know there’s more complexity to the arguments, and there are surely more that didn’t immediately come to mind, but I’ve found none convincing so far.
To me, there are several problems that haven’t been addressed to my satisfaction:
1. The problem of god as being “uncaused” or always existing. It’s simply not plausible that something as complex and powerful as a god could just be with no explanation of how it got there because it never did “get there”. If the universe in all its complexity requires an explanation, surely god does too.
2. The problem of an immaterial being doing things. Especially thinking up and creating matter. I don’t find it plausible. Absolutely everything we have any experience with has some material basis to it. Ideas are grounded in matter because it requires a material brain to think of and experience them, and even physical laws would be meaningless and nonexistent if no matter existed. It’s hard to believe that any mind, even the most powerful, could imagine matter before it existed.
3. The problem of an immaterial being, period. Something that doesn’t have any material basis can’t do anything, nor can it think. Within human experience, only brains – and the material connections within them – are capable of producing ideas. To me, there’s no logical reason that we should believe that this requirement of physical existence isn’t universal.
Am I in the minority for thinking the idea of a god completely illogical and implausible? Absolutely. Howard is wrong to suggest that I’m ignoring what others see, though. I’m not an atheist because I think everyone else but me is stupid (far from it), or because I’m willfully ignoring multitudes of solid evidence and explanations. I’m more than willing to have my beliefs challenged (otherwise I wouldn’t be here), but I just haven’t seen anything that answers my questions, which I think are all pretty reasonable concerns.
“1. The problem of god as being “uncaused” or always existing. It’s simply not plausible that something as complex and powerful as a god could just be with no explanation of how it got there because it never did “get there”. If the universe in all its complexity requires an explanation, surely god does too.”
—–The only other explaination is an infinity of causes. WHEN YOU READ the following from Contra Gentiles and it’s companion logic what was your reaction?
[11] The second proposition, namely, that there is no procession to infinity among movers and things moved, Aristotle proves in three ways.
[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.
Michelle,
Based on what you wrote regarding the “proofs” that God exists, I believe you have enough understanding of them and yet you are still not convinced and are honest about that. I personally take comfort in knowing that these “proofs” are not intended to compel the intellect to ascent to the truth that God exists but to show that believing that God exist is reasonable. If belief in God were not reasonable, who would believe? If there were really a compeling proof that believers could give, who would not believe?
I will tell you what I wish someone had told me a long tiem ago.
1. Get baptized if you arn’t already
2. Spend some time each day in the quite of your own room or out in nature talking with God as if He does exist. You may feel most comfortable at this point if you keep this to yourself.
If you are like I was, you’ll probably ignore this advice for a while thinking that it is “unreasonable” to get baptized or talk to God if you don’t believe he exists. I would agree that it seems unreasonable in a way but you won’t feel nearly as uncomfortable as you imagine.
There are lots of other things I would like to add but I don’t think they would be very convincing. I could tell that I was agnostic and that I never imagined that I would be Christian or Catholic. But if I told you the story, you wouldn’t believe it
By the way, I don’t think that you are stupid or evil. I think you honestly don’t believe. Thanks for being open minded.
Peace,
Alan R
Alan, I appreciate your response. I actually have done your second suggestion a few years ago, but I stopped when I thought more seriously about religion and its claims. As a scientist, I try to make sure that the skepticism and intellectual rigor that I apply to my academics extends to my beliefs, and for me, that has meant that only atheism has been satisfactory. I would hope that if a god does exist, he would see (as you seem to) that I disbelieve not because I’m lazy or ignorant, but because it would be intellectually dishonest for me to ignore my strong (and I think reasonable) doubts.
Thanks for your comments as always!
Not long to discuss, but Michelle, although I am a theist…I have always found you to be pretty reasonable, and you seem to debate in good faith.
Thanks, Mary! I’ve always enjoyed reading your comments and your rational (and research-minded) approach to issues!
Michelle,
I can only conclude that you have never actually read Aquinas.
Use that link I gave you, he addresses all of this.
You have to accept that you have an intellect and will. That’s how we reason to the existence of immaterial beings.
I’ve seen this logically played out with atheists many times. They are so determined to deny God that they will deny their own minds.
It’s almost painful.
This topic Stacy titles ‘Are Athiest searching for Truth’ and I’m reminded of the words of Pilate: ‘Turth, what is Truth.’
Michelle wrote ‘do not believe as I have yet to see’, remindes me of those who asked Jesus for miracles, or Thomas who did not believe because he was not there when Jesus appeared to the other disciples. “The problem of god as being “uncaused” or always existing.” For believers this is easy, Christ told us ‘I will be with you always’ which we interpet as ‘until the end of time.
“Especially thinking up and creating matter. I don’t find it plausible. Absolutely everything we have any experience with has some material basis to it” This reminds me of the scientiest who told God he had found out how to create humans out of dirt. God said show me. The scientist picked up some dirt and God said – just a moment – create your own dirt.
“I’m more than willing to have my beliefs challenged (otherwise I wouldn’t be here), but I just haven’t seen anything that answers my questions, which I think are all pretty reasonable concerns.” Please watch the link below, it has English sublines as it is in Spanish, I think, but there is also a reference toward the end to Saint Thomas Aquanis.
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/impressive-video-of-eucharistic-miracle.html?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0150&utm_campaign=MainNewsletter
There are many more examples like this that scientiest cannot explain but they know what they have seen through their tests. God still gives us miracles, it is up to one to believe or not. Some even with scientific proof before them are still asking themselves – what is Truth.’
I mean no offense, but your first 3 paragraphs really made no sense.
Do you have any peer-reviewed papers documenting these miracles? I looked but found none, which is odd. If the wafer actually turned into heart muscle, I can assure you, no scientist with any sanity would refuse the opportunity to publish a paper on that. I’m not one to take as gospel truth some random video with no citations…
“If there were really a compelling proof that believers could give, who would not believe?”
AlanR, this statement takes us to a whole nother level of understanding of Christianity.
Truth can be shown by reason or other means. To assent and believe takes more than an acknowledgement that something is factual. You must give in to the truth. You must accept it’s authority over your own. What compels is not the fact but the assent.
Howard,
I believe that you and I are both enthusiastic about theology and grateful for the love God has for us even if we express it differently. My comment to Michelle was worded to express my belief that she is looking for the truth because her comments sounded rational and her will seems good and she said that she is open to the truth and I take her at her word. At this point, I believe that if she ascents to the truth, it won’t be due to any logical argument or stack of evidence put in front of her, it will be an act of Grace.
It is true that by natural reason alone, one can come to the certain conclusion that God does exist. That Michelle has not come to the conclusion that God exists simply shows that she is wrong, not that her intellect is malfunctioning.
I believe there is no truth that compels the intellect or moves the will of necessity except the beautific vision. No amount of telling someone that they must believe the truth will make them. It would be like telling my son that he must like baked beans. I can make him eat them but I can’t make him like them. I can tell someone the truth but they can’t be compelled to believe it.
For someone to ascent to a truth that they don’t already hold as a fact would require them to trust one thing in place of the truth of the thing itself. In this case, Michelle does not believe in the truth that God exist. She might like to take my word for it but she doesn’t.
In my comment to Michelle, I was recognizing where my power to move her intellect to accept the truth ends and God’s begins. My encouragement to her to get baptized and pray were all I had left to offer her besides my prayers for her.
Michelle,
If you read this, I appreciate you commenting back to me above and was not intending to talk about you like you arn’t in the room or cause any offense.
Peace be with both of you,
alan
AlanR, to clarify my comment. I was not speaking primarily of THE truth but ANY truth. Because we have free will we are also able to not accept or pursue even the smallest truth. It is this ability to maneuver and twist and avoid that makes us the humans we are. If God intervened directly we would be only puppets.
I see in this conversation a lack of desire to investigate. There is no curious interest in the unknown or unbelieved. No desire to take on the work of investigating. No tenacious heart of the investigative scientist. No desire to admit any truth that would conflict with presupposed conclusions. In short, a confirmed atheist that just says without meaningful interaction – prove it.
Nothing New.
In reply to what Phil wrote: “Apparently you have not read Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Acharya S., etc. The attacks against Islam are much more vitriolic…as for religion scaring atheists, that’s quite a non-sequitur.” No, I have never read any of the people you have mentioned, but then again I’ve never heard or read of them going after organizations and cities to have symbols they find offensive removed as this group out of WI has done on more than one occasion. I’ve never seen or heard – guess I need to switch from some of the writers I like to athiest writers – go after Jewish and Muslim groups.
As for the quote I did attribute it to who said it and if it not true why are there so many attacks on Catholic/Christians groups and symbols and not the others – Star of David, or Crescent moon of Islam? I’d perfer to stick my noise into John Henry Newman, Liguori, John Paul II and others along the same line.
Michelle, I’m sorry I wrote in such hard to understnd symbolism, I’ll try to make it simplier next time.
As for documentation of written works the Church has approved many of these miracles:
“Science, when called to testify, has confirmed what we have believed in Faith and what the Catholic Church has taught for the last 2,000 years; echoing the words of Christ, “My Flesh is real food; my Blood real drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood dwells continually in Me and I dwell in him.”-John 6:56-57″
http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
From another article: “Perhaps the most famous one of all happened in Lanciano, Italy, in the 8th century. After a Basilian priest said the words of consecration, the host changed into a piece of visible flesh and the precious blood in the chalice coagulated into five globules of different shapes and sizes. The priests of the region immediately preserved the miracle in a reliquary. In 1970, Pope Paul VI permitted tests to be conducted by Dr. Odoardo Linoli, Professor of Anatomy and Pathological Histology, Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy in Arezzo, assisted by Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena. The host and the globules were analyzed with microscopes and other instruments that would not destroy the specimens. The doctors concluded that the flesh and the blood were both human, that flesh came from the muscular tissue of the heart, and that both the flesh and the blood globules were of blood type AB (the same as the blood found on the Shroud of Turin). Scientists say that the fact that blood types were only discovered in 1900 and the blood was AB — present in only four percent of people — makes the possibility of fraud at any point statistically very unlikely. The blood had proteins found in the same normal proportions as found in fresh normal blood — even after 13 centuries of exposure to atmospheric and biological elements.” But the Church does not say one has to believe in these findings or miracles, it is a matter of faity, but it was the miracle from the 8th century which led to the feast of Corpus Christi – Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ as it is so named today.
From another article: “Daniel Sanford of New Jersey journeyed to Betania, Venezuela from 11/12/98 til 11/15/98 on a pilgrimage with an organized Prayer Group from Medford Lakes, NJ. On 11/13/98, as part of the pilgrimage, they went to see the Bleeding Host of Betania at the Chapel of the Augustinian Nuns in Los Teques. Our Spiritual Director, Father Mazzarella, said Daily Mass. When we finished, he opened the Tabernacle door, which contained the Bleeding Host. The Host was in flames, bleeding, and there was a pulsating heart bleeding in the center of the Host. The Group watched this for about 30 seconds or so, then the Host returned to normal. HOWEVER, Daniel did manage to film this miracle with his camcorder!”
As Bishop of Los Teques, Pio Bello S.J. Bishop Emeritus of Los Teques is quoted in relation to this video: “you can fool the mind, but the camera only films what it sees.”
“Observers of the pictures and of the story of the miracle have raised two specious theological counter-arguments. The first invokes the authority of the Council of Trent. The Eucharist contains the glorified and immutable body of Christ. How can the Eucharist bleed or change into living bleeding flesh, still less, change into a living heart? Secondly, what purpose can such a miracle serve?
The history of the Church records more than one hundred and sixty approved Eucharistic miracles.”
For many it is a matter of faith and belief, for others nothing will change their mind that it could be possible, unless it were to happen to them, to see it with their own eyes – like Saint Thomas who would not believe the Lord had risen unless he saw with his own eyes.
Today the Church celebrates the Assumption of Mary into heaven, this is a teaching of the Church many non-Catholics don’t accept either – they want the proof she did assend to heaven.
Richard, it doesn’t matter to me if the Church has approved them or not. I want to see scientific – peer-reviewed – documentation, as I would for any incredible claim. The scientist who saw bread turn into muscle tissue should have some lab notebook documentation at the very least, but there is no reason why something like this wouldn’t be verified and published.
As Bishop of Los Teques, Pio Bello S.J. Bishop Emeritus of Los Teques is quoted in relation to this video: “you can fool the mind, but the camera only films what it sees.” Apparently the good bishop was unfamiliar with photoshop.
Reminds me of the miracle of light that Malcolm Mudderidge described when he had the dark hospice of Mother Theresa filmed…all declared a iracle, until it was revealed that the videographer used a new Kodak film which all we unfamiliar with…an illusion of divine light…”The Missionary Position,” C Hitchens
Or perhaps the miracle that the Vatican attributed to Mother Theresa’s intercession which led to beatification: both the doctor and the woman’s husband’s admitted it was a fraud http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,364433,00.html
Good examples! I haven’t read The Missionary Position, but I did watch Hell’s Angel (a short documentary done by Hitchens that I think probably addresses most of those points). Very interesting stuff.
Michelle: Various ecclesiastical investigations have been conducted upon the miracle since 1574, and the evidence of the miracle remains in Lanciano to this day. In 1970-71, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena, conducted a scientific investigation into the miracle. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and reaffirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the Higher Council of the World Health Organization in 1973.The following conclusions were drawn:
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/search
The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be highly unlikely to “fake”, given that only an expert hand could have done it, and not without serious difficulties.
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles.
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.
The Flesh and Blood of the miracle can still be seen today. The Host-Flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in colour, and becomes rose-coloured when lighted from the back. The Blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly colour resembling the yellow of ochre.
- scanning electron microscopy (SEM) verifies that the Host at Lanciano is exactly a thin slice of myocardial tissue — impossible to obtain even with modern lasers.
- tests on the contents of the chalice verify that it is unequivocally human blood, type AB positive. Furthermore, the blood is unoxidized — exactly of the same chemical construct as blood in the veins (blood immediately changes its chemistry when exposted to air.)
- The elements do not decay even 13 centuries later, yet are not preserved in any way.
Maybe if Discovery Channel or National Geo did a program on it – but then again, you would not have the proof you are requesting – once again the Doubting Thomas syndrome – if I do not see I do not believe.
But then I just had a thought – if one has doubts should they not do their searching instead of having someone else do it for them?
Richard, I did the searching. To my knowledge, this is not documented in any scientific paper. I don’t think you understand – you linked me to a search page, but not to a paper. Show me the peer-reviewed journal article where someone says a wafer turned into heart muscle and has the data to show it, and I’ll consider it. Until then, no amount of bullet points will convince me of a physical impossibility.
All good scientiest need but one link to work off, maybe you gave up your search to early or just don’t want to know what you might really find, but since I seem to be able to do it a little easier, this is the closest I can get you to it, page out of the journal – but will leave it to you to transulate it.
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Eucharistic_Miracle_of_Lanciano_-_public_documentation_-_ricognizione_scientifica_-_4_marzo_1971.JPG
I can only conclude that you don’t know what a scientific journal article is. Hint: this is not one.
I know what a scientific journal is, I’ve published in them before. This is one, it’s just old and in another language Michelle. A scientist reported the results of his tests. You’ve got to understand that the Vatican doesn’t toss out substances like this to the public for investigation because there are people like you who wouldn’t believe it no matter what anyone else said. The Vatican is interested in finding out for themselves what they need to know.
Do you have any idea how the miracles (the thousands and thousands) are proven? Do you know about the process? I’ve got a friend with a healthy little boy whose heart didn’t beat for the first full hour after his birth, doctors confirmed it. They were pronouncing him dead, when his heart started beating. People were organized and praying for the intercession of Archbishop Fulton Sheen. That incident was investigated (private individual interviews, verification of medical records, etc) for over a year before they even got to the point of naming it an “alleged miracle” to be further investigated in the canonization process.
You can go into a room full of believers, children include, and ask people to raise their hands if they’ve witnessed a miracle and hands will go up all around. I personally know several people who have seen blood dripping from the host and I have no reason to believe they are either deluded or lying.
We don’t evangelize based on multitudes of miracles though. We evangelize on the Resurrection of Christ and the Real Presence of Him in the Eucharist.
It’s real Michelle. So is Hell.
My apologies. It looks nothing like any paper I’ve seen, and I was (of course) expecting something I’d be able to read, and read in its entirety.
The Vatican has a vested interest in pronouncing things miracles. Hopefully you understand why I’m not going to simply take their word for it.
“It’s real Michelle. So is Hell.”
Charming.
Michelle,
I respect your search for the truth very much. I’m on the same path (although I prefer to call myself agnostic). I think your criteria for determining a miracle, however, is a bit lopsided.
There can be no peer-reviewed publication on the scientific merits, or lack thereof, for the Lanciano incident. Even if there was such a publication, I’d reject it. Lots of nonsense is published in peer-reviewed journals. Hell, they even publish some of my work!
Why would I reject it? Because there’s no way to observe the initial conditions of the Lanciano material, or to measure the bread as it is being changed, so there is no way to determine the process by which this has come about. Furthermore, in incidents like this, where the transformation occurred over a relatively short time-scale and the substance of bread is fairly common, repeatability would be necessary to establish this miracle scientifically.
We would have to play with the conditions of the bread and find out which conditions change it into heart tissue.
The necessity of (at least theoretical) repeatability is the an essential component experimental and observational science. If these are your criteria for miracles, then none will ever be found. Some of the necessary parts of a miracle, it seems to me, is that a miracle involves some Divine Will, and that it also involves a violation of natural law. If a miracle became repeatable and the mechanism by which the miracle came about could be understood, then there would be no will, and the event would be part of nature, and so wouldn’t be a miracle at all. If a natural mechanism cannot be determined and if the event cannot be repeated, then any good referee would reject any attempt to publish evidence for this miracle, because it’s not good science.
Even the most obvious action of God, say, rearranging the stars tonight to spell out John 3:16, would not establish the reality of the supernatural, but would instead bring God into the natural sciences as a subject. People would begin to ask “what force is necessary to move the stars? what are the gravitational consequences? what must God be made of to exert this sort of force? etc.”
It seems as though you are not really open to evidence for miracles (since scientific standards will rule out any possible miracles at the beginning of the investigation). To be fair, I’m not sure I am either.
Maybe you accept Spinoza’s view on miracles? Spinoza thinks that miracles are simply natural events whose causes we don’t yet understand or aren’t aware of. I strongly favor this position, but I do have to be honest. This position isn’t based on science or empiricism or reason. It’s a sort of first-principle in naturalism. It’s a dogma.
Maybe I am just as dogmatic as the Catholics? Maybe you are too?
I worry about this.
You’re absolutely right, and yes, Spinoza’s view sounds accurate. I think science necessarily excludes miracles, because everything we know and understand is based on an understanding that events have identifiable causes and physical processes that underly them (even if we aren’t totally sure how they work). Miracles sidestep that in a way that’s problematic for someone who doesn’t believe in magic.
It’s a good question, though, what would require me to think something a miracle. I am honestly not sure. Let me know if you come up with anything!
I have found this a generally respectful and knowledgeable discourse among concerned people. I would like to add a perspective of being a former member of Catholic religious order steeped in doctrine, now a married man of over 30 years and someone who cares 24/7 for a totally disabled, non-verbal, non-mobile, non-everything 26 year old son.
I totally reject the option of an anthropomorphic deity … a person there who is all-king, loving, merciful, who came to earth for my sins, died and resurrected. I am a pantheist who believes in the Source, which exists in all and that I can communicate and channel that Source for good.
How did I arrive? Research and a belief that I did not need an a god of an Abrahamic religion to explain anything. Beginning in 2000 BC or earlier with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the story of Horus, son of Isis and Osiris, there have been at least 30 dying and rising gods. All were born at the time of winter solstice, in poverty, in of virgins, met by wise men guided by a start (hence, astrotheology a common thread), shared a common message, were all crucified (either on a cross, state or tree) and all raised in 3 days. Christianity anthropomorphised the diety and borrowed heavily from astro-theology (ie. 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 apostles, etc.) Of course, Constantine institutionalized the faith.
So I believe in something, perhaps as described by Father DeChardin…”we are all spiritual beings having a human experience.” Need not be more complex than that. The more your make a religion dogmatic, more doctrinal, more unchangeable…the more it is inaccessible to the common man. I care for my son all day long, have never been away from home for 14 years. I am joyful and love my life. Don’t really have any time for sin! My life goal is to prove to myself that I can be a good person without the acknowledgement or reliance on a god, although I co stay in constant contact with my Source.
Sometimes doctrine and dogma defeat the wandering of human minds!
My hat is off to you, Phil
@Michelle
Stacy’s comment: “It’s real Michelle. So is Hell.” the comment is dismissive, condescending and rude and does not belong on a blog which encourages civil discourse. When ideas are confronted with snarky response, it’s time to run! I apologize for her as you should be embraced not dismissed….
Interesting how we interpret differently. I took her comment as telling someone truths in an abbreviated way since we are talking about truth here.
Phil,
Michelle has commented here for a long time, even though it frustrates her. She knows she’s welcome. Hell is real. This is a Catholic blog, that is Catholic teaching.
Not snarky, rude or offensive, Phil, just true.
No kidding. “Shut up and agree with me, or you’ll burn in hell forever” – how persuasive.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skeelz.
I’m not sure what else you could have meant.
Michelle wrote: “I can only conclude that you don’t know what a scientific journal article is. Hint: this is not one.” Hate to tell you but I do know what a Scientific Journal is and while searching for some proof, I used search word ‘journal’ along with the writer and of the miracle. I guess the link I provided is wrong in saying it came from a journal. If you do not want to accept what I shared with you, that is up to you, as the ole saying goes – you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
I’m sorry that what I shared was not in English, and I’m not going to take the time to copy it and use a transulation program and do it for you.
I hope you will continue your own search if you really want to know the truth.
@Richard E
Horses will only drink pure, unpolluted, clear and “real” water unless they are literally dying of thirst…those dying of dehydration horses will drink anything even antifreeze.
Truth? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof (Hitchens, C)
Plus, you know, they weren’t really publishing scientific journals routinely (if at all?) on the internet in 1971.
Richard, I’ve seen that work before. It’s fascinating, are you familiar with the website, The Real Presence? My guess is, you are.
I do know that web site, have it bookmarked, along with several more, about 3 pages worth that I keep at my fingertips in a file, a quick click and I’m there.
Phil,
The concept of “proof” is something I’ve discussed and studied quite a bit. It’s interesting that people who ask for proof often don’t know exactly what they are asking for.
How do you account for all the miracles of the saints?
Miracles? Don’t believe the them and here is why. Most can be explained by the power of the placebo effect, some through poor documentation and analysis and others outright fraud, like the one miracle attributed to Mother Theresa … a fraud that was verified by both her husband and her doctor but readily accepted by the Vatican.
Another reason, is that miracles do not defy natural law. Has a person who lost an arm or leg through amputation ever had it miraculously regrow? Has a person who an eye, ever had it miraculously come back? Body parts do not re-grown, organs do not re-appear that have been removed…the tremendous power of placebo explains most others which are not fraudulent.
Please do not insult me by telling me I don’t know what I ask for. A loss of limb replaced by divine intervention would be proof for me.
Been doing some more research this morning. I was able to get into the WHO archives but unable to get into the file for 1976 when the WHO findings were published.
Phil: maybe I should of said you can lead a animal to the food it likes to eat but you cannot make it eat.
Wrong, not the food they would like to eat…the analogy limps worse than the first one. Sorry, Richard…let it go!
Phil wrote: “A loss of limb replaced by divine intervention would be proof for me.”
The miracle of Calanda: “At the end of that April, the Pellicer family decided to go thank the Virgin of the Pillar. In Zaragoza, the council asked for a trial to be opened, so that all light might be shed on the event. On June 5, two months and a week after the event, the canonical process was officially opened. It was open to the public. More than one hundred people of all classes took part in it. Despite the rigor of this process, not one conflicting voice was ever heard. On April 27, 1641, the archbishop solemnly rendered his verdict. He declared the restitution of the formerly amputated right leg of Miguel Juan Pellicer, originally from Calanda, «wonderful and miraculous.»”
http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/2006/12/08/2061206.htm
Sorry but cannot find any pictures of the leg growing back – some would probably claim they were photo shopped anyways.
Phil – so you would lead an animal to the food it does not like to eat?
An old village story in 1638…has the Deity gone into retirement since then or is he only focusing on shrinking tumors after chemo ….didn’t the Church condemn Galileo in 1633 (pretty close timeline); accused and convicted him of heresy and put him in house arrest till he died. How can you trust anything from this time period? Legs re-grow…the world is flat, all scientifically attested to be the clergy and Catholic doctors/scientists ….come’on!
“The Vatican has a vested interest in pronouncing things miracles.”
Michelle, I think this assumption is incorrect. It has a vested interest once there is commitment to the truth of the miracle. Nothing is vested until then.
@ Howard
Michelle is very much on target, as in the case of Mother Theresa…redd for yourself
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,364433,00.html
Ever wonder why the rush has come to standstill!
Phil,
Something tells me Michelle will believe Time Magazine over a science journal in Italian from 1971.
Howard probably won’t though.
Kind of hard to believe something you can’t read… Also, from what I’ve seen (correct me if I’m wrong), this is something that reportedly happened in the 8th century, and tests on it were done a good 800 or so years later. Yes? No?
Michelle, now you had your epiphany…you clearly understand why all “important” Church documents are written in Latin, because it’s the universal language of Vatican City State that no one understands but translators … kinda like the radioassay tests on the Shroud of Turin (dated to the Middle Ages) but some Catholic scientists claim that only a repaired piece was carbon-dated (wrong)! All these conspiracy stories … all the secret archives…all the … makes ya wonder …read the latest “The Messianic Matrix”; you’ll enjoy!
I found another site that has 2 pages from this particuar journal and 2 pages from another, but they also are in Latin/Portugese so not even bothering to list it. Some journals just have never been transulated into English, maybe someday someone will.
Something tells me Michelle will believe Time Magazine over a science journal in Italian from 1971.
And, if it concerns miracles, I would believe neither.
Phil, sometimes subtlety can be a detriment to understanding.
Michelle is on the nothing. There is now a vested interest in this miracle. This kind of controversy that you so eagerly take to is what careful study of the cure can eliminate, or tone down. The controversy is not over and it is too early to come to definitive conclusions.
I did read the article but did hesitate. I haven’t trusted “Time” or any of the other weeklies since about early 1960s, when I compared the facts in stories of countries I had visited. I paraphrased the NYT slogan then and I believe it applies now, “All The News That Fits The Print”. You do recall that Hitler was “Time” man of the year.
“….didn’t the Church condemn Galileo in 1633 (pretty close timeline); accused and convicted him of heresy”
Galileo was guilty of annoying his peers and annoying the Pope to death with his insistence that heliocentric view be taught as Catholic doctrine. He was not the first person to propose this view of the solar system or even the first to support the idea in the Catholic world. The story is a good argument for the Church not having wide spread authority in temporal law.
I cringe when someone tries to defend the existence of God to and atheist with the proof of miracles. Although, because of my wife’s long illnesses Lourdes became important in our lives. Scrupulous medical examination by all branches of medicine (including non-believers) often for decades are required. It must be SPONTAINEOUS and physical and not a mental illness. There are only 65 approved cures. The last in 2005 after the cure happened in 1952. There have been millions of visitors and 10s of thousands have claimed cures, but, only few attempted the proof and only 65 proven by medical science.
Howard, given that the truth in question is subjective, it would seem that the mind set of every atheist would have to be categorized in some fashion. Say for example that an “emotional” atheist doesn’t believe because; how can a loving god allow for so much pain and suffering? A “practical” atheist might use Occam’s Razor to slice away at the truth. A “scientific” atheist would undoubtedly use the scientific method. There are probably as many different types of atheist as there are different sects of Christianity. But from what I have read and gathered when they are asked of truth, they are all driven by the Human Spirit.
Human Spirit you say? Spirit? Isn’t spirit a part of the ethereal realms of un-reality where deluded Christians and the like, like to play? Oh, OK. So it’s not a spirit per se but more like a state of mind. But isn’t the mind the invisible part of the brain projects and allows for us to use it in the first place? I see, will power. Isn’t that an invisible tool used for setting up boundaries for self preservation or a motivational force to persevere? What’s that about the Force? Please tell me you didn’t get your X-Wing stuck in the swamp again. Those were made for fighting space battles and not mud boggin. You are just going to have to get it out yourself I’m not helping time. You see where I’m going with this……
People are always looking for truth. Most people are I suspect. There must be some sort of credence to the matter or we wouldn’t be wasting our time in search of truth. Those little nuggets I spoke of could be in the hands of anyone of us or all of us as a collective. So I ask you or any of you. If you were in possession of the “truth” part or whole, would you be aware of it?
I remember seeing a bill board on Dothan Alabama with a picture of a black man who was murdered. Written on the bill board was this “God knows who murdered (name) do you?” along with the Dothan, Alabama Police Dept. I’m sure the grieving family that put the sign up was well justified and I feel sorry for them. But if they are claiming and actually believe God already knows the truth of the matter why don’t they just get him to call the cops. Further more if he is already has the info at hand what need of a criminal justice system do we have?
AMEN! …in the most secular sense, of course!
Andrew, I am going to pick at you.
First, the truth in question is not subjective. God either exists or He does not. You may believe it or not, know it or not, care or not. None of the things that you can think up affect the existence of God or not. Wouldn’t we be powerful if it did? The mindset of an atheist is no different in quality than the mindset of any other person with a different question.
People say they are looking for the truth, but, in truth are they?
Your little nuggets are things that are true, but not truth itself.
“But if they are claiming and actually believe God already knows the truth of the matter why don’t they just get him to call the cops. Further more if he is already has the info at hand what need of a criminal justice system do we have?”
Andrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww. Does anyone really need to answer that?
Howard, I think the issue is less about “god” existing of “God” not existing. That’s an oversimplification. Some accept a personal God, some accept a distant intelligent designer who leaves us alone and does not intervene in human affairs. My issue is with an anthropomorphic God to whom humans attributed quantifiable attributes understandable in human terms. I believe in Source, an energetic inter-relatedness of all humanity and creation. I believe in Gaia…so. it really depends on your belief in the Source or the Center.
“so. it really depends on your belief in the Source or the Center.”
Phil, what is the “it” that depends on my belief?
It is the way that one chooses to direct one’s life and it live one’s life…sorry, trying to avoid it.
Not exactly a revelation Phil – we guide our lives the way we chose.
Is not the issue; is there such a thing as absolute truth?
When I referred to God to Andrew I was meaning the view of God that he would think of in a Baptist world (and a Catholic world). So the answer you would give is “no, that God does not exist.” I don’t see why the question should be more complicated that that.
If atheist are searching for ‘Truth’ why are they going around threatening to sue everyone . Just read another article where a atheist group is going after NY schools to remove many songs from their music class because they contain the word ‘God’ or ‘Lord’
http://zionica.com/2012/08/16/educators-dismiss-atheist-threat-to-sue-over-god-songs/
Bingo, Richard. Maybe some are, but some are searching for something else I think.
Easy, it’s their version of the truth and the 1st amendment guarantees them freedom of and from religion and God is not part of the Constitution. They are expressing the right of a very small minority and that’s their constitutional right.
Phil, you said you believe in Gaia from Greek mythology but interesting that many native American Indian tribes who knew nothing about Greek mythology also had a concept of Mother Earth. If you look at the Navajo Indians and their interpertation of creation it is very similar to the Creation verses in Genesis. I did the research on this 9 years ago for a research paper but not going to go back and dig it it, it is all on the net or visit your local library.
Yes, there is ‘freedom of religion’ and also the freedom not to a religion or to have any beliefs, but does this give atheist the right to infringe on those who are religious? For them to demand or sue to have symbols and words removed is infringing on the Christian right to religion and trying to deny them of that. If a atheist doesn’t want their child exposed to what is taught in public or private schools send them to a atheist based school where they can control some of what is taught, rip out songs that make references to God or Lord or Almighty. Instead of references to Christian make references to Greek or Egyptian mythology.
The position of the atheist minority does infringe on the religious majority but that infringement is allowable and permitted under the 1st amendment. The issue of symbols and words and their regulation deals only in public institutions and lands funded by governmental monies. All beliefs and religions CAN have their own churches, schools, book, symbols words in their private places.
A public school child should not be coerced by the fact of compulsory school attendance to look at crosses, menorahs, snakes, devil’s horns, etc in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. To allow any symbol is to tacitly endorse it…this violates the Jeffersonian separation of church and state. Religion and its symbols belong in the private, non-governmental places. There is no discrimination, that’s why you have Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, etc schools
Am I the only one here who has not written a paper that has been published except in the most inconsequential publications?
getting ready to shut down as under severe T-storm warning.
As to the paper I mentioned, only research for a college theology course, never published.
Pick away Brother Howard!
We can certainly agree that God does exists in our heads at the very least otherwise we wouldn’t be talking so much about him would we? As for existence beyond the mind, that’s harder to imagine. If god exists outside of existence how can you say he exists at all? My sister told me I have to get my head around God then in a different discussion she tells me God is something you can’t get your head around. So which is it?
In some way I see your point clearly. A fundamental truth can be nothing but objective. I guess what I am considering subjective then would be a person claiming that he or she is in possession of it
No you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. My thinking is that the couldn’t solve the case for whatever reason so the family appealed to a higher power. I don’t know if the killer or killers were caught. But it was a pretty ballsy move on their part. I can’t imagine to have commit a crime like that and then see that bill board sign.
When is Stacy going to put a bar in this place for us?
Sim Sala Bim, Phil
Richard, Freedom From Religion are nothing but extreme leftist swines who abuse the word tolerance and understand it like this; give an inch that open invitation for invasion.
“As for existence beyond the mind, that’s harder to imagine. If god exists outside of existence how can you say he exists at all?”
Andrew, does Turner Field exist? For many who have never been there it is only a concept. Despite photos and stories the understanding of it as a place still only is in the mind of the person viewing or hearing. Objectively we both can say with assurance that it indeed does exist – unless they have renamed it by now. If God created our existence, our time, our physicality then what’s so hard to understand.
“My sister told me I have to get my head around God then in a different discussion she tells me God is something you can’t get your head around. So which is it? “
Let me guess.
1. You need to understand who God is in order to understand religion.
2. It is impossible to understand Him fully.
“In some way I see your point clearly. A fundamental truth can be nothing but objective. I guess what I am considering subjective then would be a person claiming that he or she is in possession of it”
Yes exactly. Knowing the truth, that’s the hard part.
Not that I don’t want to answer. I read it as the family telling the world their beliefs. The police dept will not do anything to help and God will judge. They are defeated in this life and want the world to know their misery. If you are asking about why God does to react to the billboard, I’ll leave that to another discussion.
Howard,
Above, you responded back to me about my comments to Michelle. I see what you are saying. While you and I many others seem to be talking about the nature of truth and the operation of the intellect and will in response to it, the athiests hold an erronious belief claiming that there is no proof.
When natural reason supports it they say “that proves nothing”
When testimonials are given they say “it’s your word against mine”
When miricles are discussed they say “phony balony” or “not big enough” or “i didn’t see it with my own eyes”
etc…
You are right. Nothing new.
I had given Michelle the benifit of the doubt that she is seeking the truth. I have personally struggled with how to share my faith with athiests and agnostics for a year or so because I was agnostic myself. I don’t know that I would have ever accepted the truth on my own if I had not experienced God’s mercy directly. Some in my own family are not budged by my testimony to the miricle that saved me and my gratitude to God and His church.
When I finally learned that there was such a thing as catholic theology, I said finally! this is where I belong! this is what I’ve always felt was true but could not express. Now I study as much as I can and am constantly humbled because I can’t seem to take the truth that is in me and put it in anyone else.
I really appreciate that you respond to my comments and those of others. I alot to learn.
Peace,
alan
Alan,
I know exactly what you mean about realizing what Catholic theology is, and the feeling of wanting to explain it to others. I’ve experienced mercy directly too, have witnessed miracles from the physically phenomenal to the daily little affirmation that I didn’t expect.
There are quite a few atheists and agnostics who visit this website, and although it is frustrating to read the things they write and say, “Nooooo” in my mind, I have decided that I’m grateful to even be able to dialogue with them. When I was not religious, I didn’t even search because I was just too lazy and self-absorbed to care. I admire that these visitors are actively searching.
God brings good people into my life every day on the internet. You’ll love this. Bonnie is a friend of mine, she writes at Ignitum Today. Her son is the object of the alleged miracle under investigation by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints for the beatification of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
Please go read this story, it will keep you smiling all day!
http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/07/03/meet-james-fulton-the-alleged-miracle-for-the-beatification-of-fulton-sheen/
Howard, did you see that? Isn’t that amazing!
The people who so easily dismiss miracles should know that this has been under investigation for a year (maybe longer), in which they independently interview the individuals (including non-Catholics, especially non-Catholics) who witnessed this event and review medical records.
Thanks for your comments Alan, I hope you stay around. Maybe you could tell us a little more about yourself?
Yes, I know the story. You are blessed to be close to it and have it bring you even closer to your Catholic family.
My life has had several happenings that have nagged me all my life as to why. Only after studying the faith have I understood.
I know for a fact that men exist. I know for a fact that men build things such as stadiums like Turner Field. I’ve spent enough time and money there to know it exists. 7 bucks for a beer and that exists in this universe!
Santa Clause exists in our heads too. He has similar if not the same omniscient qualities. Documentation does exist to prove it and is heeded by small children around the world where parents can afford it. For all we know Santa may be the Creator.
I know it’s a stupid reference but it’s all I got right now and I’m getting sleepy.
How just exactly are you sure that you know what is true?
Goodnight Howard and the rest of y’all
All we have to determine truth is our senses and reason. There’s nothing else that we can use.
If I look at the universe and I see that things move, and that what anything that moves had to have been moved by something else already moving, then I think either there was a first mover or an infinite chain of movers. If there was an infinite chain of movers, how would I have gotten to the present? So there’s got to be a first mover. This involves my senses and reason. The conclusion can be only as trustworthy as my senses and reason are trustworthy. Not very.
If I consider that God would want to reveal himself to me through a book or an institution, and start looking toward the Catholic Church or Mormon Church or the Bible, my conclusion depends just as much on my senses and reason.
There’s no way around it. The same tools I use to determine that I exist and that other people exist are the tools that show me no evidence for God’s existence, and are also the tools that show you a great amount of evidence for God’s existence. We use the same methods. But at least one of us is wrong.
Ace,
My own curiosity towards truth has me posit: Why must God exist or not exist? Why not both at the same time, like schroeder’s cat; or like randomness and order?
Why only two options? Why not seven? why the dichotomy? (Five of which are a complexity outside of our understanding)
Why can Atheists NOT be a part of God’s plan? Maybe God would like Human’s to grow up a little, and solve their own problems for a while. Maybe it’s time that we leave God’s nest and return much, much, much later on as a mature species? When we can have an ADULT relationship with the Creator.
Stacy really beats the snot out of Strawmen arguments she puts forth. Are Catholics really searching for truth? It always seems like Stacy’s stuck in this dichotomy; to put on the Catholic team Jersey, lob a over Strawman grenade at the Atheists, then ignore the real answer to her question.
Ace,
“All we have to determine truth is our senses and reason.”
That’s what Aristotle and Aquinas both founded their proofs of God’s existence on.
Only they believed that man could trust his ability to reason if he tried hard to do it right — to seek the truth. They said man should try to get as much wisdom out of everything as he can.
Stacy,
I agree. People apply these tools and get different results. Due to either some problem with our senses or some error in reason, not everyone concludes that God exists, and there is still uncertainty.
If you believe that there is a definitive demonstration for God’s existence, present it in your own words, and I will tell you whether or not I find it convincing, and why. Then we can discuss it.
Ah, now we are actually getting somewhere!
Andrew wants to know what is actually true and is 7 dollars too much to pay for a simple beer, Ace doesn’t like to trust himself, Mjeck denies that there is such a thing as truth, Michelle is silent, AlanR and Stacy know that agnostics can be just indifferent, Phil is waiting for another opportunity to attack the Catholic church.
What a discussion!
Howard,
Is truth even worth pursuing? Is there a truth that is even higher and more important? Like calmness, and character?
I think that’s a good summary, but I’m not sure
LOL
Michelle’s question about the timeframe of the supposed miracle (tests done 800+ years after the fact, yes or no?) was ignored.
Anyway, Stacy has
kindly informed me I’m going to helloffhandedly mentioned that hell is real, no reason, so I know that the smugness level in this thread is preeeetty high, and I want none of it.Me, too, I’m gone… things which should be addressed are bypassed as if of no consequence and I really don’t like scurrilous judgementalism
Michelle, you did at least prove me wrong – you have a voice.
We do need a bar, and some cookies.
Mjeck, calmness is an emotional state, character is a description of someone that may be true or not.
From my experience, everyone has the truth, knows the truth, wants to share the truth; but rarely do I find someone with calmness and character, and when I do, they never talk about “the truth”, they just live it.
If that person was commenting on this thread he would have nothing to say – reference the title.
I know you can somehow accept contradictions without wincing, how is that possible?
God created the platypus, so walking contradictions are possible.
The platypus is I believe a subclass of mammalia with a small representation. An unusual creature but exactly how is it a contradiction in itself?
Truth is constant and consistent. Truth is resolute and responsible. Truth gets the job done when Truth hate the job at hand. Truth is everything that is good. Truth is Virtuous. Truth is Right. Truth is “finally for me” Objective.
I had a craptastic day today.
At one point I thought to myself…What Would Howard Do? And I imagined Stacy at her newly installed virtual bar sliding shot glasses full of “Nuggets of Truth” and “cookies” on napkins for those that deserve cookies.
And of course “less than 7 dollar beer”.
Mjeck, If Truth isn’t worth pursuit, Then Happiness must not be worth it as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3KdpzL3Hkk
Andrew,
The light from every candle also casts a shadow; if you want to pursue happiness, you’re unwittingly pursuing sadness.
Amazing engine. I was thinking as he was grinding the crank, could it be smaller. Probably not, because the forces when running might snap it.
Other than throwing Buddhist like sayings around what is the solution to the dilemma of the pursuit of truth and happiness? I beg you, please enlighten us!
I did enlighten you. Calmness and Character is a far more noble pursuit, than “truth”.
Truth these days is a commodity, and eventually worthless
Speaking of Buddhist sayings, here’s one for ya. “Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.”
I like that one, thanks. I read the Zen and motorcycle maintenance. Good read. Made me think.
John 8:12
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
This is a good example of “truth” being a commodity.
Which Jesus is speaking here? The protestant Jesus? Mormon Jesus? New Age Jesus? Catholic Jesus? 16th Century, 1st Century, King James version, Orthodox?
This quote means so many things to so many people, that it eventually means nothing.
Mjeck, he was a commodity to Judas Iscariot.
I quoted from the New King James Version, I like the use of language during that period.
From the Wycliffe:
“John 8:12
Therefore again Jesus spake to them, and said [saying], I am the light of the world; he that followeth me, walketh not in darknesses, but shall have the light of life.”
The Douay-Rheims:
John 8:12
Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
The Orthodox use the RSV.
Which Jesus? I am not aware of there ever being a claim that there was more than one Jesus of the resurrection. I know that the Muslims claim that Jesus had a stand-in on the Cross, but that does not qualify as another Jesus that they love. Even non-believers in history only talk about one person.
The Gnostics believed that Judas and Jesus were best friends, and he entrusted the most important task (his betrayal) to the only apostle that understood his message; and they were writing this stuff around the same time as the gospels were being written/copied.
The Gnostics had a VERY different interpretation of who Jesus was.
Does it make the Gnostics any less true? Is what you held true at 19yo, still hold true today? If I told you that the only truth you ever need to know can be found in looking at a flower? Would you believe me? what if i said it changed my life? Would you stare at flowers?
Knowing YOUR truth is easy. Telling others to follow YOUR truth is easy. Living your truth, that’s hard.
Character… that proves you’ve found YOUR truth.
“Does it make the Gnostics any less true?”
Yes it does. Since Jesus established His Church and gave it the authority to determine and teach His truth, starting with the Apostles, any old writing that may appear then or now does not have validity unless it is determined to have validity by the Church. Only writing that accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus can be true Christianity.
I would say that if I found all the truth I needed by looking at a flower, I would be in a time warp and back in the Hippie era again.
If i don’t accept your truth, and you do not accept mine. Then what is true?
You will never stare at flowers, and I will never accept the authority of the church.
So what is true?
Both? Neither? Yours for you, mine for me? Is truth even important?
“Is truth even important?”
Have you tried this with the IRS?
Honesty is a characteristic
Then I assume that you would insist on proof of the objective truth as to what you would owe?
Howard,
Can you tell me where you are going with this IRS example? Is your belief in God like paying taxes? You demand objective proof before you believe? That sounds a little atheistic. Clarify?
Yes, this is a real life example of a truth (what a person owes based on law), what you think you owe (a person’s perception of the truth assuming you honestly believe you owe differently) and what the examiner says you owe (his perception of the truth).
In order to settle the question objective truth must be consulted. What both of you think may be true but is not the determining factor. The only thing that matters is what is outside of you both.
Now if you accept the importance of objective truth in this example and not in others you merely deciding if objective truth exists in another question. How can this be rationally determined unless you search?
Ok, so what is the outlier, the thing outside of both of us, that is the objective truth?
It is not the church, because I do not accept this objective truth; it is not a flower, because you do not accept this objective truth.
So what is an objective truth we can both agree on?
I would suggest the objective truth is character: Honesty, Humbleness, Servitude? Love? Forgiveness?
Do you have a better suggestion to define an objective truth we can both agree on?
“Ok, so what is the outlier, the thing outside of both of us, that is the objective truth?
It is not the church, because I do not accept this objective truth; it is not a flower, because you do not accept this objective truth.
So what is an objective truth we can both agree on?”
—-We are not required to agree in order for something to be true. That is the point and beauty of objectivity. To put it in one context, it means that you are not equal to God.
So we are not able to agree on what is true?
Yet, you have the objective truth, and I have the objective truth?
Interesting.
What good is truth?
Mjeck, get out of this room and this conversation with Howard. He is analogous to a well-honed porn site operator who bares enough of a nipple to get you to return again and again to take your money, in this case your sanity. As I have stupidly followed his dialogue I am only reminded about Chris Hitchens’ comments about the Rev. Jerry Falwell :
“If [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox.”—CSPAN, April 2009 I have not blocked this site so I won’t continued to be seduced by this “inspirational porn.”
“Yet, you have the objective truth, and I have the objective truth?”
Truth cannot be had it is a concept or a person depending on your world view, it can only be known or understood well or poorly or not at all.
Well, I think I understand the objective truth of the Atheist and the Theist, both quite well; and I find character a far more difficult and noble pursuit.
I thought you left Phil. Like my nipples?
Actually I am speaking more in terms of philosophy than theology. You will find an objection to everything I have been saying in various schools of philosophy and in various schools themselves. What are you afraid of?
Phil,
Seriously?
Tell you what, see our customer service department and they’ll fix you up with a refund. Howard’s in charge of it.
“Is truth even worth pursuing? Is there a truth that is even higher and more important? Like calmness, and character?”
“….everyone has the truth, knows the truth”
“I did enlighten you. Calmness and Character is a far more noble pursuit, than “truth”.”
Mjeck, I understand that you don’t think contradictions are important, but, don’t you think that they at least lessen a person’s ability to understand what you are saying?
My original point, is that I can see the perspective and “truth” of the Atheist. So much, that i think they have very valid points that I accept.
I can also accept the Religious, Catholic point of view.
Perhaps you find that is a contradiction, and makes you wince. I don’t. I think it’s as much a contradiction to understand and accept both points of view, as much as a Platypus: A poisonous mammal, with a ducks bill that lays eggs.
“My original point, is that I can see the perspective and “truth” of the Atheist. So much, that i think they have very valid points that I accept.”
So to be clear. Do you see truth in the atheists fundamental claim that there is no such thing as God as we understand him to be, an ever existing intelligent being, while seeing truth in the claim that he does exist
I still don’t understand how a Platypus is a contradiction. It is unique, what does it contradict? What is it not that it is?
Yes, I accept much of the atheists point of view.
If they say they have no soul, and when they die, they will return to dust; why would I not accept this as true?
“If they say they have no soul, and when they die, they will return to dust; why would I not accept this as true?”
If I tell you the opposite, would you also accept this as true?
Howard,
Yes I would accept. Your hope is Heaven.
I have spent many hours on this blog and have been fascinated by the conversations with atheists. On reflection, the impression I get is that they are as a “breed” fixated on one concern – If I submit to any statement that could possibly lead to my accepting of His existence, then will not that path destroy the true image I have of myself and my world. Will I have to lessen my faith and reverence for science (a synonym for myself) even if I am not fully convinced? Even mentioning hell can have the same reaction as saying Boo.
Although they are willing to accept their personal weaknesses, that cannot be avoided because those are too obvious, concern over personal weakness is overcome by being a member of and having faith in the human race. A group which surely has the ability by itself to overcome any problems and will prevail – even over death eventually. Isn’t that just a matter of modifying the part of the gene that controls cell reproduction? Science shows us the way, it has been very successful at understanding the world and fixing defects in organic life so why can’t it figure everything out, eventually.
Isn’t success never ending and unlimited? Does not this thinking reveal an eventual result? Freely willing that a soul be trapped inside of a distorted physical body. Mangled, altered, and drugged into becoming a real life fictional character, like the Borg of Star Trek. What ever results will be the desire of a ruling class. Democracy is just an obstacle easily overcome by group think. Our penchant for control, power, fame, fortune, dominance, and destruction can overcome doing what is good and right when God is outlawed, all you have to do is argue subjectivism. Why is it that Americans have historically revered the individual? Because it protects against the evils of collectivism. Unfortunately, this reverence has taken a wrong turn and arrived at an understanding of individualism that excludes God’s plan for that individual and substitutes government as the individual’s protector, and being more powerful, will decide the individual’s destiny.
Howard,
I have come to call this (though my husband coined the term) the “happy slave sydrome.” The refusal to acknowledge God-given freedom means freedom and rights depend on what another man grants, and if that’s not enough, they are so determined to deny God that they will deny their own minds.
There are so many contradictions in atheist reasoning.
Humans have no free will…
…yet they call themselves free-thinkers.
Humans have no purpose…
…except the purpose to prove there is no purpose.
They bow to no one…
…except the next stronger man.
And you’re right, mention hell and it’s like you said, “Boo.”
Instead of defining themselves by what they believe, something positive, they define themselves by what they refuse to believe or even try to understand.
The apologist Frank Sheed said in the introduction to his Training Outlines, that “proof has ceased to be the apologists principal weapon” because first an unbeliever “must understand quite clearly what the thing is that you are trying to prove” and then “he must realize that it is important — and important for him.” And, third: “He must want it.” (from his author page at Ignatius Press)
Wow Stacy! When you’re up to bat, those Strawmen arguments of yours really get shredded to pieces!!!
Maybe Atheists seem contradictory because you’ve never attempted to understand or represent them properly? Or perhaps complexity isn’t your strong suit?
Judging from my last conversation with Howard, an Atheist will never accuse a Catholic of honesty, kindness, or humbleness; because being right is far more important, apparently
Mjeck,
Are you denying that atheists say that there is no purpose, that there is no free will, that there is no God who gives man freedom?
Maybe you don’t know what a strawman argument is. It’s when you make up the other person’s argument for them and refute it. I’m not making this up. These are things atheists say. You have even said, if I remember correctly, that there is no such thing as freedom.
Stacy,
I am saying you create poorly reasoned, weak arguments against Atheists, then ignore any attempt by atheists to correct your logic and understanding; then declare yourself the winner. If that’s not a Strawman, then what is it? Shoddy blogging?
I don’t care to re-explain the history of Free Will, for you to ignore. The last thing I asked, if i remember, was that you just have a little reverence for the debate of Free Will that has gone on since the beginning of time, by Theists alike, and is not a closed case.
Atheists do not say there is no purpose to life. Why are you not aware of this? Is that a Strawman, or shoddy blogging?
Haven’t been on much since storm the other night as my eyes have been bothering me so trying to do catch up in reading. I did read something from another blog, Little Catholic Bubble, that relates a little bit to this discussion:
“A Pennsylvania atheist filed a grievance with the state’s Human Relations Commission this summer after he learned that Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia was offering a 10 percent discount on meals to people who brought their church bulletin with them.
“I did this not out of spite, but out of a feeling against the prevailing self-righteousness that stems from religion, particularly in Lancaster County,” John Wolff, a retired electrical engineer, told the Intelligencer Journal of his decision to go toe-to-toe with the restaurant.
“I don’t consider it an earthshaking affair, but in this area in particular, we seem to have so many self-righteous religious people, so it just annoys me.”
In that case, the restaurant’s owner refused to halt the promotion [you go, girl!]. And the matter is still pending before the secular Pennsylvania commission.
Did you get that? Religious people “annoy” him, so he files a complaint, and the FFRF calls in its gang of lawyers to intimidate the proprietor and potentially ruin a family’s business.”
I’ve seen this – giving discounts for having a church bulletin – many times, have even taken advantage of it myself but it has been a few years back. I even saw on the news where one ‘family owned resturant is offering discounts to people who leave their cell phones at the check out – Would some athiest go after them also?
time for my eye drops again which means little screen (online and TV) for a little while.
Holy ****!!! Are you Christian nutbags really this ignorant and deluded!!?
Try one of these works from former fundies and ministers who discovered their sanity and left their deluded religious beliefs behind.
1. “Why I Became an Atheist”–John Loftus
2. “Godless”–Dan Barker
3. “Farewell to God”–Charles Templeton
4. “Why I Believed: Reflections From a Former Missionary”–Ken Daniels
5. “The Christian Delusion”–edited by John Loftus
6. “The End of Christianity”–edited by John Loftus
7. “The Case Against the Case for Christ”–Robert Price,Frank Zindler
****edited
Mjeck, yes I think you are on to something, comments such as Mr. Dickel presents need to be understood correctly. He is not ignorant and angry and letting others present his case as he appears, but, simply startled and has erupted uncontrollably.
Yes, I think Dickel would make a good case to prove my point.
Dickel is arrogant, because he believes he knows the truth and you do not. This is why I believe humbleness and calmness is a better character trait for someone with the truth, no matter the circumstances.
But Dickel’s attitude is neither here nor there, for either of us, or Stacy. His bad behavior still doesn’t excuse us to return his arrogance with arrogance.
Will Stacy read that list of books? Likely not. And likely would not, even if Dickel presented his case with humbleness and respect.
Mjeck,
You accused of strawman, in reference to this:
Humans have no free will…
…yet they call themselves free-thinkers.
Humans have no purpose…
…except the purpose to prove there is no purpose.
They bow to no one…
…except the next stronger man.
Again, I ask you, are you denying that atheists conclude that free will is an illusion? Are you denying that atheists have concluded there is no purpose to life? Are you denying that atheists do not believe our rights and freedom come from God?
Dickel said that we should read some of those who left christianity, or something to that affect, but why not also read some who embraced Christianity like Cardinal Johyn Henry Newman, Anglican to Catholicism; or Elizabeth Stein, Jewish to Catholicism?
“Raisin cookies that look like chocolate chip cookies are the main reason I have trust issues” – Unknown (saw it on FB)Thought this was cute to decided to drop it in..
page layout looks different today or is it just me?
Richard,
I’m having fun tinkering today! Everything will work fine, it just looks different. I’m upgrading to a WP premium theme.
I’m installing a new theme, sorry for the sudden changes, will settle soon.
That is OK, like this but sort of caugth me off guard – like was the page from yesterday ‘the truth’ or is the page as I see it now ‘the truth’. :-0
In that list of people Dickel gave, could one add Aristotle to the list or would he not be considered a athiest?
This new format I find much easier to read with the larger font
Mjeck, I won’t read that list either.
First – Is that I believe a person can reference another but needs to actually state his case by himself. You will only find me referring you to a book or another person’s quote to emphasize a point or that he has stated it better than I could ever do. I talk to you directly and what ever comes out I own.
Second – I don’t take reading assignments from angry Trolls.
Third – I can’t think of a third. Oh…I probably have heard it all from the popular atheists anyway.
I replied to both Howard and Stacy, but they were not posted, but when i tried to re-post, it said it was a duplicate posting.
It seems as though I can post like this, but not by pressing the reply button directly below a specific message
test
To Stacy:
I am saying that;
A. Either, purposely, or accidentally, you are misrepresenting Atheists.
B. That I am not going to explain how you are misrepresenting them, because you will ignore my response, and carry on as always.
Postulate against actual accredited, accepted Atheists; such as Carl Sagan or Sam Harris, and quote what they actually say on these subjects. That is good investigation.
To Howard:
Don`t you think that Stacy should read some Atheist literature before she is going to make statements against them?
Are you happy with her cartoonish rendition of an Atheist bad guy?
Mjeck,
I’m quoting atheists. I know you know that. You said yourself — there is no such thing as freedom or free will.
I am not an Atheist
Have you converted to Catholicism?
My conscious would never allow me to do that. And if I were to convert, based on your writings, it would be on a false pretense. I married into Serbian Orthodoxy, and I am pleased with my choice, and my family Saint.
Mjeck, you want me to get between you and a girl from Texas who can handle 6 small children!
heh
Howard, think he wants you to sacrifice yourself, your chances of survival would be better in the middde of a field during a thunderstorm holding a lightening rod.
A QUIZ FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE.
There are 169+ comments on this thread. How many actually speak to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentilesre?
I have read some of the Summa Contra Gentiles (I have read more of the Summa Theologica), and can comment on it to a degree.
It would be helpful to have one of the arguments in the SCG phrased in your own words. My understanding of the document is very limited, and I do not want to create strawmen.
If I address St. Thomas Aquinas’s argument in your words, then either we can determine where Aquinas and I disagree, or we can determine that neither Howard nor I understand Aquinas sufficiently to continue.
Ace, one purpose of my question was to emphasize the question of the title of this thread, “Are Atheists Searching for Truth?” My answer regarding the modern ones is NO! The other purpose is to actually read a rebuttal that is thoughtful. I have found that Christianity is only strengthened by it’s detractors. Not that I am just watching a fight and know who will win, knowing weaknesses is important to knowing what is true honestly. That magic word.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Aquinas I have said before that I find him tedious to read. I am vary impatient and want to get to the bottom line quickly. I was reading an encyclical of Pope Pius XII and after about 50 paragraphs saying the same thing in 50 different ways I said; “O.K. already, I believe it.” I suppose that is why I have never called myself an academic. I didn’t start out that way; life’s assignments just seem somehow to move a person in a direction.
Despite that what little I have read I find him incomparable in style of course, but also content quantity and most cases quality. I venture a guess that you don’t have to “know Aquinas” to know what he is saying on any particular subject. I defer to the theologians (or future ones) on this site for expert interpretation but will gladly offer an opinion (of course, it’s free).
Refer to my comment to Michelle of August 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm.
The answer to the question is that probably some atheists are searching for the truth, and that not all of them will arrive at the same answer.
I am not an atheist. I am definitely searching for the truth. The truth is the most important thing.
We of course generalize an answer to a generalized question.
On this blog, on other sites and in world class debates, I have mostly seen “Dickleized” thought from very intelligent atheists – afraid to venture further.
If you write, “the truth” singular, how is it that there can be so many different answers?
Just read this and thought I’d throw it in:
“A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing, disbelief in God usually results in a belief in anything.” ~Arthur Lynch
Howard, going back to the list of scripture passages you could include this one also: “many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” ~ John 6:66
Ace, you mentioned that some are searching for the truth, but we still find many who even something like two pieces of steel left standing after 9/11 that was in the form of a cross, they go all into attack mode: Another atheist law suit: A lawsuit that challenges the placement of the cross at the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center alleges atheist plaintiffs have suffered serious physical and mental illness…
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/atheists-claim-ground-zero-cross-sickens-them/
That must be one heck of a powerful piece if it causing serious physical and mental illness when they look at it – sort of reminds me of Moses creating the staff with the serpent on top, those who looked at it were cured/saved from snake bites, those who turned away perished.
RichardE, speaking of snakes, I could have used that staff a while ago. I just got back inside from taking care of a rather large rattle snake who was trying to get into my yard, and I suspect, under my deck. That makes two who have tried to crawl through chicken wire and get stuck.
Stacy, the down side to nature.
how is it that there can be so many different answers?
We can only determine what is true by using our senses and reason.
Sometimes people make mistakes when they reason.
Our senses are also greatly lacking. We can only observe a very small component of the electromagnetic spectrum, and there are many other things that we cannot see.
There are tools to help us see more, and there are tools to help us check our reasoning, but none of these is perfect.
Most people are ignorant about most things. All of human knowledge taken together does not cover very much.
A combination of ignorance and fallibility in both our senses and reason results in many answers to questions for which there can be at most one correct answer.
So I keep searching for the answer.
I tried to change it to “correct answers” but it is still a bad question.
So many different answers only means that the question and/or the reasoning needs to be re-examined. Not a grand observation.
I am gone for a few hours.
Ace, what is your response to the question I posed to Michelle?
Ace, what is your response to the question I posed to Michelle?
I think Aquinas’s argument is sound. Actual infinities seem to be impossible.
If everything that exists has a cause, then since God exists, God must have a cause.
If something can exist without being caused, then why can’t that thing be the cosmos?
I don’t think he is trying to say infinities are impossible, but that causation can’t go to infinity because finite time is involved. There must be a first cause – which is what we call God.
There are other arguments that Aristotle discusses for why actual infinities are impossible. I find these arguments convincing.
I agree with Aquinas that there is probably a first cause. I do not call that cause God. It may be the cosmos itself, and then I’d be a pantheist.
For this limited discussion the impossibility of infinity is a positive and supports the conclusion. For an answer to your cosmos question read from [1] in Chapter 13, ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
I think it is extremely important that the phrase, “That is what we call God” is understood and that we do not say, “God is the one who makes that happen”.
For this limited discussion the impossibility of infinity is a positive and supports the conclusion. For an answer to your cosmos question read from [1] in Chapter 13, ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
I do not think that Aquinas thought of time as a dimension (and probably did not think of the mathematical connection between entropy and the direction of time). He probably thought that time only moves in one direction. It may be the case that the universe causes itself, or that it is caused by an eternal pre-universe. These are two of many possibilities cosmologists are currently considering.
Aquinas’s arguments, as far as I understand them, cannot handle these possibilities. Some contemporary philosophers and theologians have tried to restructure the cosmological argument in light of our current understanding of the universe. So far, their efforts have not resulted in a convincing argument. At least, not an argument I find convincing.
When I mentioned time (I knew that was a mistake) I meant motion in our finite world. As we see a planet move. Multi-verses still have to have a universe with a first cause. There is no existing theory in Theoretical Physics that does not need a first cause.
To say “eternal (infinite) pre-universe” is only to say it.
I would encourage you to read the arguments (the Summa also treats the same subjects) and dissect them. They are pure logic.
I have read Aquinas’s arguments. I do not find them convincing.
When I mentioned time (I knew that was a mistake) I meant motion in our finite world.
How can motion occur without time? How can change happen without time?
Concerning local motion, an object moves in a straight line at a constant velocity unless acted upon by a force. It seems then that motion does not require a cause, but forces do.
There is no existing theory in Theoretical Physics that does not need a first cause.
The first cause might be the universe itself. It may also be an eternal state of matter. There are many other possibilities, but I understand these two possibilities best.
I am content to leave the problem with our respective minds for now.
As am I. I don’t know what else I can add.
Ace, lets try this. How do you interpret the following exchange?
person #1 – There is no existing theory in Theoretical Physics that does not need a first cause.
person #2 – The first cause might be the universe itself.
Ace and Howard, great discussion. My duties call me away too much now, but I enjoy reading what you write.
Ace, you said this:
“I agree with Aquinas that there is probably a first cause. I do not call that cause God. It may be the cosmos itself, and then I’d be a pantheist.”
At that point, this is all Aquinas is trying to demonstrate — that there is a first cause. Call it whatever you want.
He later discusses why the revelations of Christ are truths of faith that are beyond reason, but are not unreasonable. He also shows why other religions are false.
But at this point, all he is showing is that God exists, and that we can know through reason that He exists even if we cannot fully comprehend what God is.
Reading in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles this morning this from 4:1 caught my attention: “Since, therefore, there exists a twofold truth concerning the divine being, one to which the inquiry of the reason can reach, the other which surpasses the whole ability of the human reason, it is fitting that both of these truths be proposed to man divinely for belief.
This point must first be shown concerning the truth that is open to the inquiry of the reason; otherwise, it might perhaps seem to someone that, since such a truth can be known by the reason, it was uselessly given to men through a supernatural inspiration as an object of belief. “
This made me think of a man, think it was down in Texas, who called himself a atheist was always going after the various Christian churches, protesting in front of them, even filing numerous law suits against them. But he got sick and ended up with mounting medical bills and it was these same Christian communities who came to his help with money to help pay those bills, brought food for him and his wife. They did not preach to this man through words but through their actions and it made him think about aspects of Christianity and what motivated their actions. He eventually denounced his atheist beliefs, embraced Christianity, he and his wife became members of a Christian church and he wants to further his understanding so he can one day become a preacher himself.
Mejeck, you mentioned that you ‘married into the Serbian Orthodoxy’ religion/church – are you a regular worshiper? Just wondering – It is a very old religion steeped in history and tradition with its links back to the early Catholic Church from the early 600′s.
The rejection of God by atheists (and others) in our country is not just a matter of polite debate. The Family Research Council, known for the recent shooting in D.C. has a released a report jointly with Liberty Institute, of the increasing hostility to religious liberties.
“In 2004, Liberty Institute President and CEO Kelly Shackelford, along with a number of the organization’s clients, testified before the U.S. Senate about the growing religious hostility in America. Because the opposition insisted these select testimonies were simply isolated incidents, Senators Kennedy and Cornyn asked Liberty Institute to provide additional information, which led to the development of the first “hostilities document.” The shocking number of cases made it clear … hostility to religion was a very real problem, and it affected every age, and every religious group, in every community across the country.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This updated edition of the Survey of Religious Hostility in America is a testament to the
radical shift in our culture’s worldview that started with the rise of secularism following World War II and has accelerated with each passing year of the twenty-first century. While by no means exhaustive, this survey now presents over 600 incidents of religious attacks and hostility in the United States—most of which occurred within the past 10 years.
Examples of the increasing hostility to religion described in this survey include:
Examples of the increasing hostility to religion described in this survey include:
- A federal judge threatened “incarceration” to a high school valedictorian unless she
removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech.
- City officials prohibited senior citizens from praying over their meals, listening to
religious messages or singing gospel songs at a senior activities center.
- A public school official physically lifted an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanded him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch.
- Following U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ policies, a federal government official
sought to censor a pastor’s prayer, eliminating references to Jesus, during a Memorial
Day ceremony honoring veterans at a national cemetery.
- Public school officials prohibited students from handing out gifts because they contained religious messages.
- A public school official prevented a student from handing out flyers inviting her
classmates to an event at her church.
- A public university’s law school banned a Christian organization because it required its officers to adhere to a statement of faith that the university disagreed with.
- The U.S. Department of Justice argued before the Supreme Court that the federal
government can tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and
fire.
- The State of Texas sought to approve and regulate what religious seminaries can teach.
- Through the Affordable Healthcare Act (“ObamaCare”), the federal government is
forcing religious organizations to provide insurance for birth control and abortioninducing drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs.
- The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned the mention of God from veterans’
funerals, overriding the wishes of the deceased’s families.
- A federal judge held that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to
Allah but not to Jesus.
http://religioushostility.org/
Stacy,
I find what you say very helpful.
Here is something strange I have noticed about Aquinas. I sometimes cannot get from A to B using his reasoning. When he talks about what the host is, or why Mary is without actual sin, or many other things in the later part of his Summa Theologica, I cannot determine the truth by my senses and reason.
However, any objection I come up with can generally be answered, either in the Summa Theologica itself, or when I ask this Dominican priest friend of mine. All the objections can be answered, but my mind cannot get to the truth itself. This is what I would expect from a divine revelation: I shouldn’t understand it, but any arguments I have against it should be answerable.
I think I will spend some more time trying to come up with arguments, though.
I am still not convinced, and I’m pretty stubborn.
Well, Ace, your Dominican priest friend can certainly explain it better than I can, but the word “metanoia” comes to mind.
It means to change your mind, an act of the will. You have to want to be convinced. From what I know of Aquinas, his “summaries” were to show that faith is not unreasonable, thus, his intent was to answer questions (as you noticed). He did not think his logical arguments, in and of themselves, would convince someone to convert. They are for teaching, for answering objections. He even warns in the SCG not to try to convince the unbeliever with logical arguments too much, only answer objections and show that faith is not unreasonable.
He also makes it clear in the beginning of both the SCG and ST that what was revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ was above reason, that we never would have figured that out by reason alone. The Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Blessed Virgin Mother, even Heaven, are all mysteries, things we accept by faith because God revealed them, but things we can never fully comprehend just as we can never fully comprehend what God is.
The more we try, though, the more we learn. It’s like a friendship. The more you know about another person, the more you can love the other person. The more you love the other person, the more you want to know. This is a very Trinitarian concept, and we all know it’s true.
But — back to metanoia — you have to want to know a person before you are open to being convinced that you can love the person, or that he/she is worth knowing more. If you really don’t want to know and love someone, no amount of logical argument can make you do it. It takes a change of heart, a willingness, a desire, an openness — an act of faith.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” ~Aquinas
“Love takes up where knowledge leaves off.” ~Aquinas
Aquinas was a big fan of friendship.
Ace, to get away from Aquinas (what does he know, modern science didn’t exist then). Could it be that we eventually will realize that we are actually understanding forewards and backwards at the same time.
Interview with Alexander Vilenkin:
How, asked Vilenkin, could matter, energy, space, and time have arisen spontaneously from nothing? In quantum mechanics, the reigning theory of physics on a small scale, particles spring into existence out of nowhere for a brief moment, then vanish just as suddenly. If particles could do that, Vilenkin surmised, why not an entire universe? He worked through the equations and showed how a universe might emerge literally from nothing. “It seemed like a totally crazy idea,” he admits, “but this is what the calculations were suggesting.” Vilenkin’s breakthrough provided the first mathematical descriptions of the creation of the universe. “At that time, the question of how the universe came into being was not discussed at all,” recalls Vilenkin. “The idea was that physics discusses how you got from ‘state A’ to ‘state B’ but it doesn’t answer the question: ‘Why was ‘state A’ there to begin with?’ It was kind of a taboo question. When I gave a seminar at Harvard, one guy came up to me and said, ‘It’s amazing to give a talk like that and survive!’ What used to be philosophy was becoming physics. Now it is a very active subject.”
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2005/features/feature1.html
Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. (answering questions)
Actually we do not detect any object that is 13.7 billion light years from us, the simple reason being that if we could we would literally be looking at the Big Bang itself. As a matter of fact, we cannot even penetrate the original plasma that arose out of the Big Bang, and will probably not be able to do so in the future. So, we will probably be stuck with looking at the universe as 50 million years old at the very youngest. Your ingenious question however has one little difficulty. As one goes back throughout the universe – as Einstein put it – light curves in conformity with the space time continuum. Thus Einstein predicted we would be looking at the universe when it was completely collapsed into a point, which would mean that there would not be two sides to look at in the universe, but ironically, only one point.
……Lonergan must prove that reality is in fact completely intelligible (which he does in chapter 19 of Insight, and which I summarize in chapter four of New Proofs). After proving that reality is completely intelligible, Lonergan must show that complete intelligibility implies the existence of an unrestricted intelligible, and that an unrestricted intelligible cannot be merely material, but must be purely, transparently, mentative (a transmaterial act of thinking).
http://www.magisreasonfaith.org