Atheism a Growing Evil
The title words were Pope Paul VI’s in 1964 in his encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam (99-106), as he described challenges in the modern world evangelizing to a pluralistic culture. As with almost any encyclical, nearly fifty years later it appears that his words were not only prophetic, but are still relevant. If you’ve ever had concerns about atheism, read these words written decades ago.
They parade their godlessness openly, asserting its claims in education and politics, in the foolish and fatal belief that they are emancipating mankind from false and outworn notions about life and the world and substituting a view that is scientific and up-to-date.
Pope Paul VI called this the “most serious problem of our time” because the basic propositions are so profoundly absurd that they erode man’s acceptance of a rational order, in the universe, in society, and in himself. Atheism confuses the mind, informs man that there is no purpose for his existence, and that he can do nothing to solve life’s problems. It “degrades” and “saddens” human life. Consider what has become of many societies since the 1960′s. Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?
In 2012, marriage has become meaningless to many people. Gender is becoming subjective with the false assumption that a person can transfer between one gender or the other, either physically or emotionally. Human life itself, in its most dependent and fragile state, has all the significance of garbage for those who have turned killing into a business, and creating new human life is rapidly becoming the equivalent of commissioning a new piece of furnity. In some places, medicine is becoming more about hastening death than healing. Other societies are full of violence and rebellion because humans, even those in power, have become as expendable as used up objects.
“Any social system based on these principles is doomed to utter destruction. Atheism, therefore, is not a liberating force, but a catastrophic one, for it seeks to quench the light of the living God.”
His remedy? Well, this encyclical was written to encourage and teach Catholics how to share the gospel message, the right way to approach ecumenism, to dialogue when reasonable, to recognize when dialogue is not possible. His remedy was resistance, safeguarding the truth, love, and hope. His remedy was perseverance.
We shall therefore resist this growing evil with all our strength, spurred on by our great zeal for safeguarding the truth, inspired by our social duty of loyally professing Christ and His gospel, and driven on by a burning, unquenchable love, which makes man’s good our constant concern. We shall resist in the invincible hope that modern man may recognize the religious ideals which the Catholic faith sets before him and feel himself drawn to seek a form of civilization which will never fail him but will lead on to the natural and supernatural perfection of the human spirit. May the grace of God enable him to possess his temporal goods in peace and honor and to live in the assurance of acquiring those that are eternal.
In those times as well as in these, there was the historical, present, and future threat of communist oppression, the result of atheistic ideology, and Pope Paul VI called for Catholics to resist it, repudiating the oppressors for restricting religious freedom and affirming the excellence and importance of religion. Sound familiar? It is disturbing today to hear third world atheist cries for freedom from religion, when it was atheistic philosophies about economic, social, and political regimes that, in fact, did oppress entire populations. Why are they not held to account for this failure of their philosophies?
Peace-keeping Christians who want to pray and live their lives in appreciation of truth, beauty and justice are not the oppressors. Want proof? Name the populations of atheists today being oppressed by Christians? Where are they? There are multitudes more Christians than atheists, and if domination and oppression were the goal, it would be easy to achieve, no? Sure, some of them would have us believe that encountering crosses in public and observing people bowing in prayer is the pinnacle of oppression, but even a child wouldn’t accept that nonsense. Some of them shrivel at being told they did something wrong, and refuse to submit to any authority. One can only wonder the mortal fear such people must experience upon encountering stop signs.
Pope Paul VI acknowledged, too, that dialogue can be difficult with atheists, if not impossible, but he urged, “For the lover of truth discussion is always possible.” Not all self-identified atheists are belligerent, some are sincerely searching. We can hope they realize that open and respectful dialogue is hindered by a distorted moral order and restrictions on freedom in a society. Restrictions on freedom of thought and action are obstacles to dialogue.
What is also frustrating is that, unbounded to any noble standard of integrity, people are free to misuse words in a calculated way during a debate, “so that they serve not the investigation and formulation of objective truth, but purely subjective expediency.” It is, after all, hard to dialogue when words have lost consistent meaning.
In the extremes, instead of dialogue, he says, there is silence and the only voice that is heard is that of “an oppressed and degraded society, deprived by its rulers of every spiritual right.” Chilling words in 2012.
“How can a dialogue be conducted in such circumstances as these, even if we embarked upon it? It would be but ‘a voice crying in the wilderness.’ The only witness that the Church can give is that of silence, suffering, patience, and unfailing love, and this is a voice that not even death can silence.”
There are varying degrees of communist oppression throughout the world today, there are also growing numbers of atheists. Some societies identify as socialist, some as democratic even though an increasing portion of the population has become dependent on the government to sustain them. Dependency is not freedom, it’s slavery.
What will we do in the years to come? Will we hope and love? Will we persevere? Will we continue to try to dialogue? Will be silenced? Will we be oppressed? Will we be martyrs? Or will there be freedom, honor, and respect among people because dialogue did occur with integrity and genuine search for truth? What will our children and grandchildren say of us in 2060? It seems we all could be united in the hope for a better future.
Proportion of atheists and agnostics around the world in 2007. (Source)
Category: Ecumenism, Secularism
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Sweden would seem to fly in the face of your argument; maybe even change your title to: Atheism, a growing success?
Also, if you argue that there is no oppression for the Atheist, would that not also have you concede that there is no oppression, or “War on Religion” for the Christian?
“an increasing portion of the population has become dependent on the government to sustain them.”
You mean people like the elderly?
Japan, Denmark?
eh im an atheist and i don’t think I’ve ever supported communism
There are few things there that I have a problem with.
First, you say that communist oppression is the result of atheistic ideology. That doesn’t necessarily follow. You didn’t provide any sources for that claim, but I would hazard a guess that if you were to, it would be the standard ones of Hitler, Stalin, etc. Hitler’s religious views were complicated, but he most certainly wasn’t an atheist. That’s just flat out not true. Stalin was an atheist, but you still can’t make the claim that his actions were the direct result of his lack of a belief in a god and nothing else. Atheism does not directly lead to mass murder or genocide. It’s simply the lack of belief in gods. Basically, take this phrase from your post, “it was atheistic philosophies about economic, social, and political regimes that, in fact, did oppress entire populations”, and remove the word “atheistic”. It’s not necessary and all you’re doing is adding it in there to make an association that isn’t accurate.
Also, if you look up the demographics of atheism on Wikipedia, the top 5 countries with the lowest population percentage with a belief in a god are Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Estonia is a parliamentary republic, Czech Republic is a parliamentary representative democracy, and Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies. None of them are communist nations. Take a little time to read about the state of them. These countries rank high in economics, science and technology, peacefulness, healthiness, and happiness. Hardly the qualities of a repressive regime.
You might also be inclined to say that you were specifically referring to cases where atheism is forced on the population rather being allowed to spread naturally through it. To that I would say that that is a terrible thing, but referring to my first paragraph, it doesn’t necessarily follow. Not every person in the world who is an atheist wants to hold others a gunpoint and force them to renounce their religion. So please don’t confuse that.
Second, I found it interesting that the only example of atheists on the Internet that you linked to was r/atheism on Reddit. r/atheism is what’s called a “default subreddit”, meaning you’re automatically subscribed to it when you create an account. There was a time when it wasn’t, and I remember it was a big deal when it reached 200,000 subscribers. But since becoming a default, it has shot up to over 1 million. Of course that’s going to cause the quality of posts to decrease and the proportion of things like screenshots and memes to deeper discussion to be out of whack. You failed to link to other subreddits where more discussion takes place, such as reddit.com/r/trueatheism. And you conveniently didn’t provide any examples of atheists doing good things, such as raising money for charity. Here’s some examples:
http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2012/04/thinking-atheist-charity-drive.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/11/catholic-school-atheist-raises-over-11000-responsible-charity/
https://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/r-atheism/ratheism
So basically, atheism is not a growing evil.
John, sorry, your comment went to spam jail because it had more than 3 links. I just saw it and released it. Sorry, again, for the delay. Will respond later…
John,
“First, you say that communist oppression is the result of atheistic ideology. That doesn’t necessarily follow. You didn’t provide any sources for that claim…”
Communist ideology is based on Marxism. The Church recognized the oppressive nature of such philosophy carried to its logical conclusion and warned of it long before the oppression actually happened. Marx was an atheist. His social and economic philosophies were atheistic.
“Also, if you look up the demographics of atheism on Wikipedia, the top 5 countries with the lowest population percentage…”
No one is claiming there is a direct mathematical correlation, but socialist countries are on their way to communism. That’s the definition of the words, thus the title, a “growing” evil, and that was stated in 1964. None of those countries fit this criteria either: “Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?”
“Not every person in the world who is an atheist wants to hold others a gunpoint and force them to renounce their religion. So please don’t confuse that.”
You went on a limb there. I actually specifically said that there are atheists genuinely searching for truth, and I was paraphrasing Pope Paul VI. Still, the atheist needs to answer where his higher ideas for truth, beauty, and justice originate, especially if man has no free will (a common atheist claim today) and there is no higher power from whence those things came.
I wasn’t aware of other subreddits. That one is huge and quite active on the internet. That it is so largely populated and active, only reflects badly on atheism. On any given day one can find hopes for violence and hatred there in the top posts (which get that way because people vote for them).
As far as atheists interested in doing good and finding truth, I, and many like me, welcome dialogue.
Thanks for approving my first comment. I was starting to get worried that you’d never see it.
“Communist ideology is based on Marxism…Marx was an atheist. His social and economic philosophies were atheistic.”
Karl Marx also had a beard and a mustache. Perhaps it was his beard that caused him to come up with his socialist ideas. Maybe they were beardistic. Sounds pretty absurd, doesn’t it? Attributing all of that to his atheism is just as absurd. One can be an atheist and a communist. One can be an atheist and a socialist. One can also be an atheist and a capitalist. Atheism on its own has nothing to say about those things. What you’re saying is a non sequitur.
“thus the title, a “growing” evil”
Then perhaps your title is wrong. Shouldn’t it be “Socialism a growing evil” or “Communism a growing evil”?. You’re writing about economic and social philosophies, and then sticking the word “atheist” in there in order to make an unnecessary association. Again, non sequitur.
“Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?”
That’s a pretty tough set of criteria to meet. But I would say that those five countries I named are doing a lot of things right. The following quotes come from Wikipedia…
Estonia “has the highest gross domestic product per person among the former Soviet republics. It is listed as a “high-income economy” by the World Bank, is identified as an “advanced economy” by the International Monetary Fund, and is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United Nations classifies Estonia as a developed country with a very high Human Development Index, and the country ranks highly in measures of press freedom, economic freedom, political freedom and education.”
The Czech Republic “has the highest human development in Central and Eastern Europe, ranking as a “Very High Human Development” nation. It is also ranked as the third most peaceful country in Europe and most democratic and healthy (by infant mortality) country in the region”
Sweden “has the world’s eighth highest per capita income. In 2011, it ranked fourth in the world in The Economist’s Democracy Index and tenth in the United Nations’ Human Development Index (third on the inequality-adjusted HDI). In 2010, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the second most competitive country in the world, after Switzerland. According to the UN, it has the third lowest infant mortality rate in the world. In 2010, Sweden also had one of the lowest Gini coefficient of all developed countries (0.25), making Sweden one of the world’s most equal country in terms of income.”
Denmark “ranks as having the world’s highest level of income equality,[h] and has the world’s seventh highest per capita income. It has frequently ranked as the happiest[12][13] and least corrupt country in the world.[14] In 2011, Denmark was listed 16th on the Human Development Index (8th on the inequality-adjusted HDI), 3rd on the Democracy Index and 2nd on the Corruption Perceptions Index.”
Norway “has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. The country has the fourth-highest per capita income in the world. On a per-capita basis, it is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East,[12][13] and the petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country’s gross domestic product.[14] The country maintains a Nordic welfare model with universal health care, subsidized higher education, and a comprehensive social security system. From 2001 to 2006,[15] and then again from 2009 through 2011, Norway has had the highest human development index ranking in the world.[16][17] In 2011, Norway also ranked the highest on the Democracy Index.”
Now, of course those countries aren’t perfect. For example, the distribution of wealth in Sweden is much less equal than its income. But which country is perfect. So I would ask you, can you name one society that has NOT turned away from [the Christian] God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?
I may have went out on a limb a little with my comment about atheism being forced on populations, but I already realized that. I was simply trying to cover multiple bases and anticipate you’re reasoning. That being said, beauty and justice are highly subjective. As such, my answer to from where they originate would be me. I have my own ideas about beauty and justice, and those ideas probably differ from the ideas of others. As for truth, I think you need to better define the word first. I like this statement from rationalwiki.org: “Ideas which work consistently can be used to make correct predictions, and we say they are true.” So for me, I consider things which have evidence, are predictable, and are demonstrable to be true.
Finally, regarding r/atheism, again I have to point out that it’s just one of many atheism-related subreddits, and since it’s now a default it’s become very skewed. You really have to understand that first. Many people don’t like it any more and spend their time in others such as r/trueatheism. So I would encourage you to check those out. You’ll find that many, many atheists are not as scared of dialogue as you might think. There are interesting discussions happening on Reddit and in other places on the Internet, as well as face to face, all the time. So don’t make a blanket statement like “dialogue can be difficult with atheists, if not impossible”. I just don’t think that holds true.
Mjeck,
“Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?”
Sweden does not hold high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human. Abortion is legal there for all nine months of pregnancy.
In Communist countries, Christians most definitely are oppressed. Christians are targeted, and they are targeted by atheists. You can’t name a single country where Christians are oppressing atheists, unless you define oppression as having to see crosses and watch people pray.
Finally, the elderly do not constitute the majority of the population, and being elderly does not of itself constitute a reason to depend on the government. None of my grandparents depended on the government, they depended on their families who loved them.
“Sweden does not hold high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human. Abortion is legal there for all nine months of pregnancy.”
Simply not true. Abortion is available on demand until 18 weeks and in limited circumstances up to 22 weeks in Sweden. (reference – http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15092 ). Abortion rates in Sweden are 20.2 per 1000 women – almost exactly the same as the much more religious USA at 20.8 per 1000 (all 2007 data from the UN http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID%3A12 )
I stand corrected. The law says abortion is available to 22 weeks if the baby or mother are unhealthy.
My point still stands. Ripping a baby apart and killing it in (or on the way out) of the mother’s womb is not dignified. At 22 weeks a child can survive and there is no medical reason not to deliver him or her alive.
On to other things, as you said elsewhere this isn’t a point that is reduced to a singe issue like abortion though. I just wanted to concede the “all nine months” part, without conceding the general point.
Sweden has one of the highest qualities of life in the world, and the highest rate of Atheism. Atheists want abortion, so your argument against Sweden because of abortion seems to be arbitrary/invalid.
They are fine without God.
Judging by your response regarding Christians in other nations, it seems you concede that Christians are not oppressed in America.
Mjeck,
If this can be done to you just because no one wants you, then Sweden is not a society that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/de.jpg
I never said we were oppressed in America, quite the opposite. Communist nations have been, and still are, in fact oppressive to many, many people. Communism is based on atheistic philosophies.
Sweden is not a society that holds high the *CATHOLIC* ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity – Yet, they are flourishing. This seems to invalidate your argument against Atheists.
To an Atheist, a fetus is not a human, so this line of reasoning is irrelevant with respect to your article.
“To an Atheist, a fetus is not a human…”
That doesn’t make it true.
See this statement:
“What is also frustrating is that, unbounded to any noble standard of integrity, people are free to misuse words in a calculated way during a debate, “so that they serve not the investigation and formulation of objective truth, but purely subjective expediency.” It is, after all, hard to dialogue when words have lost consistent meaning.”
Tell me, if this is not human, then what is it?
http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=438#content
Stacy,
Your argument against Atheists hinged on the challenge to bring forth an Atheist Country, that has flourished – I bring you Sweden. Sweden invalidates your arguments against Atheists.
I am not an Atheist, I am not Swedish, and I have never taken part in an abortion. Abortion is a separate issue, which you did not mention in your article. Are you asking me personally what my thoughts are on Abortion and Contraception?
No Mjeck,
I wrote this:
“Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?”
Sweden doesn’t fit that. Dismembering a child who is unwanted is not just, is not dignified.
I did mention abortion in the article.
“Human life itself, in its most dependent and fragile state, has all the significance of garbage for those who have turned killing into a business…”
You said Sweden doesn’t consider an unborn child a human. Is this a human?
http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=438#content
If not, what is it?
Abortion is a very important issue (and my own view on abortion is the same as yours, Stacy). BUT it is a red-herring for this argument.
If you are going to use abortion as a barometer for the level of evil in a country, then logically the least evil country is that with the lowest level of abortion.
Which country has the lowest level of abortion in the world?
The answer is the Netherlands or, from some studies neighboring Belgium. Both have levels of abortion that put other countries to shame. Both are fairly civilised, democratic, peaceful and decent places to live too. And yet in 2007-2008, 66% of Dutch people and 61% of Belgiums answered “No” to the question, “Is religion important in your life”, and the 2005 Eurobarometer poll had only 34% of Dutch people agreeing with the statement “I believe that their is a God” (data missing for Belgium).
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Tim,
I agree, the issue isn’t about abortion. Abortion is, however, an evil. It is part of the bigger picture.
Oh, I see what you are saying: Every country allows abortion, so every country has abandoned God. And since the opposite of Theism is Atheism, ergo, Atheists are evil.
You don’t need to stare into an ultrasound to see humans killing other humans.
“To an Atheist, a fetus is not a human,…”
Mjeck, abortion becomes easier to accept and implement if Christianity is not a part of a society’s life. The scientific argument can and has been ignored in the U.S. for decades. As God is slowly being removed from the public conscience we can see science trying to affect our concience if we let it.
“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describes a material reality.”
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)
“The Soviet Union became the first country to have abortion available, on request, often for no cost. There was intense debate among government and medical officials surrounding its legalization. The main arguments used in opposition to legalizing abortion were that it would have a harmful effect on population growth or on the grounds that it was too medically harmful to the woman.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
Dr. Bernard_Nathanson:
Originally a pro-choice activist, Nathanson gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League, and now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America). He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision.
With the development of ultrasound in the 1970s, he had the chance to observe a real-time abortion. This led him to reconsider his views on abortion. He is often quoted as saying abortion is “the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States”. He wrote the book Aborting America where he first exposed what he called “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement”. In 1984, he directed and narrated a film titled The Silent Scream, in cooperation with the National Right to Life Committee, regarding abortion. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions. He stated that the numbers he once cited for NARAL concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were “false figures”.
Referring to his previous work as an abortion provider and abortion rights activist, he wrote in his 1996 autobiography Hand of God, “I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age.” Nathanson developed what he called the “vector theory of life”, which states that from the moment of conception, there exists “a self-directed force of life that, if not interrupted, will lead to the birth of a human baby.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson
Howard,
Out of curiosity: When the egg meets the sperm; this is a human? With a soul and all rights therein? If this juncture is considered a human, is this why contraception is also a sin? Because it impedes the juncture of this human and soul?
Mjeck, scroll down on this page to see what scientists and embryologist (those who write the medical textbooks) have to say on the subject of when human life begins:
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
My child’s secular sixth grade science text (Harcourt) began the chapter on human biology with: “You began life as a single cell.”
This is not complicated science. It’s easy fact. Even celebrated Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who not only advocates for abortion but also supports infanticide, concedes that conception begins a new human being.
The science is settled. That’s why many atheists like to talk about “personhood” now, instead of biological fact. They suddenly get all metaphysical and philosophical on us when it comes to abortion, when normally they like to tout their strict allegiance to science. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps so that they can have a moral license to kill a particular group of human beings?
I honestly can’t think of any other reason.
Thanks Howard. Thanks Leila.
Mjeck,
I’ll be glad to answer your question about the egg meeting the sperm, just as soon as you explain why it’s OK for Sweden to call this:
http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=438#content
…something that is not human. (Your words)
I actually think the medical community there, and in Europe, admits (like Leila said of Singer) that it’s human. They just don’t grant that human any justice or dignity if he or she is unwanted.
Stacy,
Are you asking me to be outraged that fetuses are not recognized as human, with human rights? What about the fully grown humans that aren’t recognized or treated as human? Human’s have a long history of denying other groups of humans their human rights – Across the board – Christians included. This is why I’ve repeatedly discussed human rights on your blog.
Our form of survival has changed, in so, that children are not necessary. This is a modern world problem, not an Atheist philosophy problem. Howard’s list of reasons for people having abortions reflects this. Children are now an accessory, as someone on this blog put it.
Survival trumps morality, every time Stacy. Every. Time. The modern world has no social contract with the unborn.
So that’s your answer on human behavior.
No, I’m merely asking you if you admit that a human is a human? And that if someone tries to deny that a human is a human, by some twisted use of logic (be it a grown man or an unborn child), just to justify killing that human, that person is misusing words in a calculated way for subjective expediency.
If you are going to accuse the Catholic Church of denying humanity to a group of humans to justify killing them, then you definitely need to cite your sources.
I reject that survival trumps morality. But, since you reject that any of us have free will, I guess I see your point. We’re all just dumb animals killing out of instinct. I’ve heard it before, and it’s one reason I say I am baffled at how some people are so determined to deny God that they will deny their own intellects.
“Survival trumps morality, every time Stacy.”
Then how come complete strangers die to protect innocent people?
Mjeck, John, and Tim,
I’ve read your comments carefully, and appreciate them. I agree, the question of whether or not atheism is a growing evil, or was in 1964, is not a matter of a single issue today, neither (as you point out) by looking at and comparing current abortion rates, nor (as you then tried to use) by looking at current economic rates either. A country can well be in decline, and still compare favorably on any given year. Plus, we could argue forever about which metrics mean what, and get no where because although the metrics seem to be an objective measurement, many are based on subjective criteria.
To refocus then…
I’m writing about a 1964 papal encyclical. The question I’m asking is, “Was he right?” When I consider the creep of socialism, the evils already committed by communism (and still being committed), and the normalization of other evils, yes, I see how atheism was behind it, and how what he predicted was correct. As societies turned away from God, evils grew. Where evil abounds, freedom, justice and dignity shrink.
So, I’d like to know how you answer this. John started with something very important.
He said that it does not logically follow that one’s religious (or lack thereof) beliefs affect one’s philosophical beliefs. Is that true?
“Karl Marx also had a beard and a mustache. Perhaps it was his beard that caused him to come up with his socialist ideas. Maybe they were beardistic. Sounds pretty absurd, doesn’t it? Attributing all of that to his atheism is just as absurd. One can be an atheist and a communist. One can be an atheist and a socialist. One can also be an atheist and a capitalist. Atheism on its own has nothing to say about those things. What you’re saying is a non sequitur.”
Is it true that one’s religious beliefs have as much affect his philosophical or social beliefs as, say, having a beard or mustache?
Your refocus becomes a much more interesting question for me: Was he right?
The evil threat of Communism was the “Soupe du jour” of the 50′s and 60′s. So is his warning a propaganda period piece? Or still relevant today? If Socialism is evil, is Capitalism Godly?
Thanks for taking the time to refocus the discussion, Stacy. I want to point out that I’m not at all saying that one’s religious beliefs (or lack of them) don’t have any affect on one’s philosophical or social beliefs. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t necessarily follow that being an atheist leads to communism, not caring about others, or wanting to murder large groups of people. That’s the point I was trying to make with my “beard and mustache” statement. I will admit that I’m not an expert on Marxism or socialism, but I don’t think that Marx came up with his ideas just because he was an atheist and nothing more. And I also certainly do not agree that being an atheist automatically leads to becoming a communist. That seems to be what you’re saying, right? If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Also, can you give some more specific examples of how you see atheism behind all the evils of communism?
Mjeck,
“The evil threat of Communism was the “Soupe du jour” of the 50′s and 60′s.”
Are you saying that people who warned of communist oppression had no basis for doing so? And that it was just propaganda?
I’m not sure I could really answer that thoroughly, without rewinding fifty years before then to the turn of the century; when Capitalism and monopoly’s were the threat of the age, and out of that came the uptick of Socialism and Communism.
Nowadays, you might argue that Capitalism is the current threat, and that is why you see the rise in Socialism.
You really can’t have one without the other – And like a dance – When one partner forcibly leads the other; that’s when you have a breakdown in society’s classes.
Mjeck,
This is not a reading assignment, but I’m out of time today.
This is probably considered the Church’s best document (some may disagree, I may be wrong) on social justice. Even if you read a little, it’s worth it. These are Pope Leo XIII’s thoughts about communism, capital, labor and private property from 1891.
1891.
He saw what was coming, the document is prophetic.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Stacey,
Afghanistan is a very religious place. Following your “turning away from God” argument: Do you think there is less evil in Afghanistan than in Sweden?
Frank, Catholics have a vastly different understanding of God than Muslims. We are instructed NOT to ever force conversion (we can’t), we believe God has given man free will and natural rights to dignity and freedom. We believe Christ is the Son of God who came to show man how to live, and how to be redeemed, how to unite with our Creator who loves us and made us in His image to love each other as we love ourselves. It’s all about love.
Turning to false gods is also turning away from the One True God.
The only way your question would make any sense is if you could show that Islam and Christianity are the same thing. Just calling them religions doesn’t do the job.
In dialogue, Catholics may see some aspects of Islam that are true in a limited way, but we do not (according to my understanding) see that they possess the fullness of truth, just as atheists also do not. St. Thomas had some pretty harsh criticism of Muhammad. Consider these words carefully, they say a lot.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#6
John,
“What I’m saying is that it doesn’t necessarily follow that being an atheist leads to communism, not caring about others, or wanting to murder large groups of people.”
We have the benefit of hindsight though, this warning given in 1964, also supported by hindsight.
Communism was, in fact, born of atheist philosophies about social order. Karl Marx may not have conceived of communism for the sole purpose of oppressing people. His intentions were to provide. However, his flaw was in rejecting God as the origin of morality, of all that is true, good, beautiful, and just. In God’s place he substituted man, and rather than treating people as individuals with a body and soul, he saw them as material units. Social materialism has been used to describe his communist ideas. Ultimately, a society based on such ideology will fail.
Pope Paul VI was not the first pope to repudiate such social orders, Pope Leo XIII was a contemporary of Karl Marx and had strong warnings against communism even then in the late 1800′s.
Quoting the encyclical the post was about:
“They strike at the genuine and effective foundation for man’s acceptance of a rational order in the universe, and introduce into human life a futile kind of dogmatism which far from solving life’s difficulties, only degrades it and saddens it. Any social system based on these principles is doomed to utter destruction. Atheism, therefore, is not a liberating force, but a catastrophic one, for it seeks to quench the light of the living God.”
This isn’t calling all atheists evil people, it is a warning that atheist philosophies about social order are seriously flawed.
“and rather than treating people as individuals with a body and soul, he saw them as material units.”
I think you are mistaken. This is Marx’s analysis of capitalism, not his vision of communism. Capitalism reduces human beings to material units, forcing them to sell their labor. I’m confused why it’s relevant that Marx’s economic theories are atheistic. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is equally atheistic. Capitalism does not require a God. Free Markets are totally separate from God and religion. Furthermore “Christianity has been a source of both praise and criticism for capitalism, particularly its materialist aspects” from wiki: http://tinyurl.com/9hwojlb
Can you explain how Adam Smith is any different from Marx in regard to matters of God?
Frank,
I think you are narrowing in on some important points.
First, Marx analyzed social structure according to materialist philosophies. See Historical Materialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
From what I know and have read of Adam Smith, which isn’t much, yes it does seem he was also an atheist, though some question whether he was a deist.
This is my simple take on it. Both capitalism and communism, without God, and doomed to failure as social systems.
If the people in a purely capitalist society are atheist, seeing no higher source of morality than themselves, then there is no consistent expectation of virtue in trade. Greed can take over (survival of the fittest style) and those who produce take advantage of those who work for them, as well as take advantage of the consumers. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle makes that case perfectly, but with muckraking flair.
Likewise, communism without a higher moral guide will also lead to a society with rulers who oppress the people.
In both, without any check on the tendency of man toward vice, an unjust society results.
With capitalism, it will happen more slowly because there are checks built in. I.e., the workers and consumers can take a stand.
With communism, the people are slaves, dependent on the ones in power to feed and sustain them. Communist countries will fail much faster.
(Again, my assessment, but based on history.)
Stacy, it seems you saying that there are 5 billion people in the world who have turned away from/are ignoring God. Out of this 5 billion people who have turned from God what proportion are atheist? Christianity and Islam are not the same thing but it is my understanding that islam is a fusion of old and new testament ideas (not a lot of original thought). St Thomas is historically correct in how Islam was promoted to people who were traders and desert wanderers who hadn’t heard old/new testament teachings and Islam was indeed spread by the sword (war). Islam was first taught to tribal people who previously believed in a pantheon of gods much like how christianity was first spread to people who were non-jews with their own gods. I’ll also point out that basically all of these first converts for both christianity and islam were illiterate poor people.
“The only way your question would make any sense is if you could show that Islam and Christianity are the same thing. Just calling them religions doesn’t do the job.”
I hoped my question would make you think about how atheism does not have a monopoly on evil and many religious societies can diminish human flourishing to an equal or greater extent as the soviet union. But I do appreciate the honesty in your “one true god” comment and realize now it was mentioned above before I commented. What do you think of countries such as Rwanda who have a large christian population but also struggle with genocide and war? Has Rwanda stayed with God?
Frank,
“I’ll also point out that basically all of these first converts for both christianity and islam were illiterate poor people.”
Yes, but the ascendancy of the Church was the most liberating event in human history. The Church, governed and guided by Christ through His Apostles and their successors, for all her history has been on a path to liberate mankind, to redeem mankind. The Church is a society far more perfect than any other, made by God, the end for which the Church exists is supernatural, though on earth, it is a human community inasmuch as it is composed of men (paraphrasing Pope Leo XIII, SATIS COGNITUM, section 10). As nation after nation has fallen, the Church has stood, to guide and instruct. The parts of the world where the early Church spread developed, over time and through history, into flourishing cultures.
The Muslim world…well, those nations have never known freedom the way Christian nations did.
“I hoped my question would make you think about how atheism does not have a monopoly on evil and many religious societies can diminish human flourishing to an equal or greater extent as the soviet union.”
I never said, and I’m trying to represent correctly the papal documents I’m studying, that atheism has a monopoly on evil. I even said in the original post, almost quoting Pope Paul VI, that there are some atheists who are genuinely searching for truth. I’ve talked to many.
I concede that religious societies can produce evil, the point is, when societies seek God — the One True God, Author of Truth, Justice and Beauty — they will organize themselves more justly.
“What do you think of countries such as Rwanda who have a large christian population but also struggle with genocide and war? Has Rwanda stayed with God?”
The Church did not give moral sanction to the killing in 1994. I don’t understand everything happening in those regions, but I know that Catholicism is growing in some parts, and if those nations look to the Church as a guide for freedom and dignity for men, they’ll find their answers.
Sorry ^^^ that’s all I’ve got. Much of those lands are terribly uncivilized, and people are starving and killing each other. I think we can both see that there are better ways for people to live together. One reason (mostly it is to guide the flock) the Church issues encyclicals is to offer instruction to nations in the world.
I think that most atheists who would call themselves “secular humanists” would not based their morality on only themselves. I very much dislike the notion of morality as egoism. Quite the contrary, they would base their morality on the higher good of human society in general, the higher good of humanity (i have no better way to describe it right now). Think of the Golden Rule and its varieties. Do I really need a God to figure out that I should not treat people poorly and consequently try to treat all people with respect? Or do you see this as an expression of self-interest?
“If the people in a purely capitalist society are atheist, seeing no higher source of morality than themselves, then there is no consistent expectation of virtue in trade. ”
This can take place regardless of wether a person is atheist or not. The system itself does not promote compassion. As a Christian I’m sure you promote and value compassion. As a hypothetical anti-capitalist atheist why can I not also promote compassion in my life and work?
I assume by workers take a stand you mean strike? Yes that is technically built into the system but strikes are what happens when the system has already broken down and is in crisis so to speak. Strikes are symptoms of the failures of capitalism, not exactly a check in the way 3 branches of government provide a check on each other. Is a government shut-down a product of a functioning government?
“In both, without any check on the tendency of man toward vice, an unjust society results.”
This is why we have law. It is made by man and backed up (protected) by man’s actions through institutions (governments/states) which are made up of men (by election usually) (or women, don’t want to be sexist). If God punished vice and injustice then we would have no need for systems of laws and various institutions. Perhaps you can explain your position on this since I feel very strongly that human rights are protected by humans, not by God, even if our institutions claim a basis in natural law.
Also, thank you for the opportunity for this discussion.
Frank,
I like those atheists, they seem headed in the right direction.
We explain that innate desire for good as The Natural Law.
We can know about God from the world around us, we can see God’s goodness, wisdom, power and beauty in creation. However, creation cannot reveal all we need to know, so God chose to reveal Himself through prophets and through His Son, Christ. Christ taught us how to live through his actions and words.
Just for a mental exercise, try contemplating the life of Christ (read John) and ask yourself if a society founded on those principles would be good. Consider the Golden Rule in the life of Christ.
“As a hypothetical anti-capitalist atheist why can I not also promote compassion in my life and work?”
You can, but someday you may wonder where those higher ideals came from, and why you have them. Atheism cannot answer those questions.
Sorry to keep throwing links, but this is something I wrote a while ago: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/why-atheists-love-science/
“If God punished vice and injustice then we would have no need for systems of laws and various institutions.”
Except that would violate the idea that we have free will and intellects. There is ultimate justice. Man’s laws are our feeble attempt to put into words and practice what is just and right. If laws are ordered to the higher good revealed by a loving God, the effects will also be good. However, civil societies have an end that is limited to transitory things of this earth. The Church, a divine society, is ordered toward something supernatural, the ultimate good. It only makes sense to try to model civil societies after the divine one.
We still, in our partial understanding, have not figured out how to form the perfect civil society on earth. Man is fallen, and will always sin. We try to do our best though. That is what law is, and it is always founded in morality.
I’m not saying America is the perfect society, then, but take a look at what happened when man ordered his law towards God’s law, when he at least made the sincere effort. In the relatively short history of our free nation, look at what technological progress we made! Engines, automobiles, the moon, the computer, the mobile phone, the ipad, the freaking iphone 5 for crying out loud!
God made us to innovate. When man is free, he will do it too. He will seek justice, freedom and dignity. He will be compassionate.
People like me see this history clearly, or at least are starting to, and we fear for the future for our children when we see the society becoming godless. And yet ultimately, we teach them how to get to Heaven, that is most important.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rerum Novarum.
Unfortunately, since it’s publication, it’s been completely ignored. Even worse, corporations are now people. The giants of the land; with all the rights and none of the responsibility.
Cool Mjeck, I love that encyclical too, and agree that too many people have ignored it.
What do you mean by corporations? I know that as legal entities they are legal ‘persons’ but what do you mean they have no responsibilities? I’ll have to look into that more.
Social responsibility is called an “externiality” in the corporate world
“…someday you may wonder where those higher ideals came from, and why you have them. Atheism cannot answer those questions.”
One question (not my only one) is whether theism can answer those questions either. Consider three statements:
1. My higher ideals were created by God.
2. I don’t know where my higher ideals come from — it’s a mystery, and I’ll label that mystery “God.”
3. I don’t where know my higher ideals comes from.
It seems pretty clear that statements 2 and 3 are the same thing. But since God is ultimately a mystery to the human mind, it seems like statements 1 and 2 are equivalent as well.
In the final analysis, then, statements 1 and 3 come down to the same thing. (This works if you swap “my higher ideals” with “the universe,” too).
My second question is this: where does your belief in God come from — specifically, your belief in your particular view of God and its accompanying theology (out of the many views out there)?
Ultimately, it comes from you: You still have to make your own choice with the limited and imperfect mind that humans have. So if your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way can the religious person claim that her moral views have a superior grounding?
RT: “My second question is this: where does your belief in God come from — specifically, your belief in your particular view of God and its accompanying theology (out of the many views out there)?”
>> From the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The supreme motive of credibility by which we recognize Christ above all other claimants is the historical fact of His Resurrection.
This is conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of His gospel, so…..
One ought to investigate carefully whether the claim of a Resurrection is defensible.
If it is, the question has been answered.
It is.
RT: “Ultimately, it comes from you: You still have to make your own choice with the limited and imperfect mind that humans have.”
>> But of course. Faith involves an assent of the human will and intellect. We are not automatons, we are free, if contingent, beings.
There can be no sin without freedom, and hence there can be no Faith without it either.
RT: “So if your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way can the religious person claim that her moral views have a superior grounding?”
>> In precisely the same way you adopt your own response to the proposition:
“No material thing can be its own cause”.
If one denies this, then one has made an error, a demonstrably certain error.
If one accepts this, then one has set oneself on a path which leads, ultimately, to the necessary existence of God.
This in itself places one in category 2 above.
Then it is simply a matter of assessing the claims of the various religions.
I guess we can also use that log to point out that the Catholic Church is responsible for child molestation.
No.
The Catholic Church condemns child molestation.
The responsible authorities in the Church who failed to act to protect the Church against infiltration of its priesthood by homosexuals?
Yes, they are indeed responsible in a secondary way.
Those directly responsible for child molestation are…..now wait for it……
The child molesters!
Surfing the internet sure does bring you to unexpected places!
@rt:
RT: “1. My higher ideals were created by God.”
>> A perfectly consistent statement- it involves hierarchy, and God is of course the ultimate Hierarch.
RT: “2. I don’t know where my higher ideals come from — it’s a mystery, and I’ll label that mystery “God.”
>> Not consistent, since it conflates the concepts of God and Unknown. St. Paul recognizes this error, but also recognizes it ot be superior to the idolatry of the rest of the Areopagites:
“For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you: [24] God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; [25] Neither is he served with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things…”
So this is the corrective offered to the Areopagites, who fit, exactly, your second category.
RT: “3. I don’t where know my higher ideals comes from.”
>> These are our agnostics, then. They will tip one way or the other, either to atheism, or tocategories 1 and 2.
RT: “It seems pretty clear that statements 2 and 3 are the same thing.”
>> Nope.
RT: “But since God is ultimately a mystery to the human mind, it seems like statements 1 and 2 are equivalent as well.”
>> Nope. The error here is to assume that we can know nothing about God, unless we can know God comprehensively.
This is demonstrably false.
It ignores the possibility that we can know God to an extent commensurate with our status as finite and contingent beings, *by reason alone*, and that we can know God even in ways which exceed reason, by His direct Revelation of Himself to us.
Which is what the Church teaches.
RT: “In the final analysis, then, statements 1 and 3 come down to the same thing. (This works if you swap “my higher ideals” with “the universe,” too).”
>> Statements 1 and 3 are not the same thing, and only statement 1 is consistent, whether one speaks of “higher ideals”, *or* “the universe.
A dog can understand a television to an extent commensurate with its status, but that television is still ultimately a mystery to the dog.
Neither is God a television set, and neither is a human being a dog.
The logical fallacy here is “category error”.
Rick,
The category error may also be that you are not able to comprehend the importance of symbol, allegory and metaphor. These are important categories in religion. When everything is taken literally, meaning can be lost.
*Sigh* Okay more directly: Your possibility that “we can know God to an extent commensurate with our status as finite and contingent beings” does not contradict the statement He is ultimately a mystery.
“Your possibility that “we can know God to an extent commensurate with our status as finite and contingent beings” does not contradict the statement He is ultimately a mystery.”
This is quite true.
What it *does* contradict, is the notion that God is unknowable.
Rick, can you give us an example of something we know about God and how we know it?
@Mjek:
“The category error may also be that you are not able to comprehend the importance of symbol, allegory and metaphor. These are important categories in religion. When everything is taken literally, meaning can be lost.”
All applications of symbol, allegory, and metaphor, stand in a logical relationship of symbol, allegory, and metaphor to reality signified, allegorized, or met aphorized.
Else they would be meaningless, and neither symbolic, nor metaphorical, nor allegorical representations of anything at all.
Thank you, Rick!
“Rick, can you give us an example of something we know about God and how we know it?”
>> Yes the very first thing we can know about God is His necessary existence.
Since no natural thing can be its own cause, then all natural things proceed from a supernatural cause.
This supernatural cause we call God, and from this we can proceed to several necessary attributes, if you wish.
Please do proceed, because you haven’t established anything yet — you haven’t even established what you mean by “natural” vs. “supernatural,” or that no natural thing can be its own cause, or even that infinite causal regression is impossible.
All you’ve done is taken the mystery of the First Cause and labeled it God, so all we know is your name for it, which diminishes the mystery not one bit.
Natural, rt, means that which exists in the material realm, or that which is logically required in order for its motions to be accounted for.
It is certainly established that no natural thing can be its own cause.
In fact, if this were not the case, then science itself were impossible, as well as any intelligible picture of the material domain.
You are correct that God is the First Cause.
It does indeed lessen the mystery just a bit- it allows us to consider the necessary l;ogical attributes of the First Cause.
Among these is our second thing we cna know with certainty about God:
God (considered here so far only as the First Cause) must be prior to all other existing things, since no other existing thing came have brought itself into existence.
This is the second thing we know about God.
So, we have:
1. God is necessary
2. God is eternal.
Any objections?
“Natural, rt, means that which exists in the material realm, or that which is logically required in order for its motions to be accounted for.”
The second half of that sentence indicates that the First Cause is natural, not supernatural, which is not what you intended.
“It is certainly established that no natural thing can be its own cause. In fact, if this were not the case, then science itself were impossible, as well as any intelligible picture of the material domain.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. Can you elaborate?
“It does indeed lessen the mystery just a bit- it allows us to consider the necessary l;ogical attributes of the First Cause.”
No, renaming the First Cause (if one exists) to call it God does not lessen the mystery at all. It simply gives us an extra word to deal with, which if anything increases the confusion.
“1. God is necessary”
You still haven’t established that an infinite regression of causes is impossible, so you haven’t established that.
“2. God is eternal.”
Eternity goes both ways, forever into the past, and forever into the future. You most certainly haven’t established the part about the future. In fact, if a supernatural God did ever exist (which you still haven’t demonstrated), that does not guarantee that He still exists.
Rick earlier: ““Natural, rt, means that which exists in the material realm, or that which is logically required in order for its motions to be accounted for.”
RT: The second half of that sentence indicates that the First Cause is natural, not supernatural, which is not what you intended.”
>> No. The words “in the material realm” specify that condition which requires a supernatural First Cause, which, of course, cannot proceed from any Cause within the material realm, which will not exist before it has been brought into existence by an act of God (First Cause).
Rick earlier:“It is certainly established that no natural thing can be its own cause. In fact, if this were not the case, then science itself were impossible, as well as any intelligible picture of the material domain.”
RT: That’s an assertion, not an argument. Can you elaborate?
>> Certainly. No natural thing can be its own cause. We prove this two ways.
First, by deduction.
Logic itself requires that no thing be its own cause, since if any thing could be its own cause, logic itself would be falsified.
Therefore, either logic is false, or else no natural thing can be its own cause.
Since logic is not falsified, no natural thing can be its own cause.
Second, by induction.
We have never observed any natural thing to cause itself.
If anyone says that some thing might be its own cause, they must experimentally show this.
If they cannot, then they must admit that they have no experimental evidence for their claim, while we have complete experimental evidence for the contrary claim.
Therefore no natural thing can be its own cause.
Rick earlier: “It does indeed lessen the mystery just a bit- it allows us to consider the necessary l;ogical attributes of the First Cause.”
RT: “No, renaming the First Cause (if one exists) to call it God does not lessen the mystery at all. It simply gives us an extra word to deal with, which if anything, increases the confusion.”
>> I am afraid I cannot agree. Mystery is not necessary. A First Cause is necessary. Therefore we have distinguished between Mystery per se, and a First Cause, thus lessening the mystery of God by its first step.
“1. God is necessary”
RT: “You still haven’t established that an infinite regression of causes is impossible, so you haven’t established that.”
>> But we observe no infinite regression of causes, nor can we.
So the proof is logical in nature; to wit, that no natural thing can be its own cause.
This having been established above, we proceed:
“2. God is eternal.”
RT: Eternity goes both ways, forever into the past, and forever into the future. You most certainly haven’t established the part about the future.
>> An excellent observation, but answered in this way:
Since God exists prior to temporality, He exists outside of temporality; that is to say, He is eternal not only before temporal existence, but during temporal existence, and after temporal existence.
His is a supernatural existence, not a temporal existence.
So we see that God is, in fact, eternal.
RT: “In fact, if a supernatural God did ever exist (which you still haven’t demonstrated),
>> Yes, I have. We have established that no natural thing can be its own cause, and therefore that God must be a supernatural cause. This is a necessary attribute of His existence, and it is a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the natural order.
RT: “that does not guarantee that He still exists”
“Still exists” is a concept related to temporal, not supernatural, existence.
Since we know that God is supernatural, we know that His existence is not subject to temporal limitation; that is to say, we know that He is necessary, and that He is necessarily eternal.
Stacy,
Sorry if I’m bringing you back into a discussion that you already moved on from. I haven’t had a chance to respond before now.
First, I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to when you say “atheistic principles of social order.” Would you mind elaborating on that a little?
“his flaw was in rejecting God as the origin of morality”
God is the origin of morality and goodness? If so, how is it possible for other species to show various degrees of moral behavior or altruism without following any supposed God? Dogs will adopt animals of other species. Dolphins care for sick animals. Wikipedia has a good list with more examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals#Examples_of_animal_altruism
These behaviors are well documented and factual. They present an interesting problem that you have to account for somehow.
Also, what about the Crusades? There you have Catholic followers engaged in a holy war bleesed by the Pope himself. Not exactly moral.
And what about the ongoing issue of child rape among Catholic priests? That’s something that really sickens me, to be honest. And I have to ask, how can you claim that God is the origin of morality when many, many men in your own church are commiting absolutely horrible acts to young children?
There are many other examples I’m sure of people claiming to follow the Christian God and get their morality from him that also have commited terrible acts, but I think my examples are enough for now.
I would also like to point out that it is perfectly possible to be good without God. People all around the world demonstrate that everyday. In my very first comment I showed some examples. These people don’t need to be told by a divine being to be kind to others and love their fellow man. They do it on their own. Interestingly, scientific studies are showing that biology may play an important role in morality and altruism: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct
“Logic itself requires that no thing be its own cause, since if any thing could be its own cause, logic itself would be falsified.”
and
“Mystery is not necessary. A First Cause is necessary. Therefore we have distinguished between Mystery per se, and a First Cause, thus lessening the mystery of God by its first step.”
Rick, you’re very entertaining. But logic itself cannot follow the mystery you’ve set up with meanings for words that you’ve made up to suit your needs and reasoning that travels only in circles.
Hi Jt,
Rick is using words that are precise, accurate, and have a well established history of use. I would venture to say that they were chosen to avoid errors in logic. His reasoning is sound.
RT:
I do not see a refutation of my arguments, so I think we have arrived at the logical conclusion of our exchange.
I have enjoyed it, thank you.
John,
No problem, I’m not usually online much on weekends.
“First, I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to when you say “atheistic principles of social order.” Would you mind elaborating on that a little?”
Social orders based on the idea that there is no God.
“God is the origin of morality and goodness? If so, how is it possible for other species to show various degrees of moral behavior or altruism without following any supposed God? Dogs will adopt animals of other species. Dolphins care for sick animals. Wikipedia has a good list with more examples:”
God created everything. That’s how.
“These behaviors are well documented and factual.”
They are observed behaviors, but they do not prove what the animal’s motivations are. The explanations for such motivations are things *we* made up after studying behavior. They are hypotheses which cannot be proven because animals can’t tell us what they are thinking.
“Also, what about the Crusades? There you have Catholic followers engaged in a holy war bleesed by the Pope himself. Not exactly moral.”
What’s immoral about defending yourself from unjust attackers?
“And what about the ongoing issue of child rape among Catholic priests? That’s something that really sickens me, to be honest.”
Good, the Church does not condon child abuse, and although certain individuals acted immorally, that doesn’t mean the Church teaches that it’s OK (anymore than college football now teaches that child abuse is OK based on the actions of certain individuals). If child abuse is your real concern, there are plenty of other organizations to sicken you today too.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-07-column07_ST_N.htm
“And I have to ask, how can you claim that God is the origin of morality when many, many men in your own church are commiting absolutely horrible acts to young children?
What? Did you think being Catholic meant you were no longer human — fallen and sinful? If that’s what you thought, let me be the first to tell you the truth. All people sin. You, me, everyone. That doesn’t make it OK, but you have to understand (and I think you do) that something remains objectively immoral even if a person commits the sin. Committing a sin doesn’t suddenly make it moral just because someone did it. Where is the right reason in that?
“There are many other examples I’m sure of people claiming to follow the Christian God and get their morality from him that also have commited terrible acts, but I think my examples are enough for now.”
Seriously, where did you get this notion that becoming Catholic makes you an infallible, sinless human being? If a man commits rape and tries to hide it, that doesn’t render rape suddenly moral. It means the man did something immoral. You get that, right?
“I would also like to point out that it is perfectly possible to be good without God.”
How could you prove that though? If God created everything and created us to know and love Him, to serve Him in this life, and to be happy with Him forever in the next life in Heaven, then of course He made you to naturally desire what is good. He also created us with free will. You will be tempted to sin. Overcoming that temptation is up to you and your intellectual desire to do good. Of course, even people who reject God and define themselves by what they reject (always thought that was weird, even when I wasn’t religious) will chose to do good sometimes.
“People all around the world demonstrate that everyday.”
They demonstrate that they are made in the image and likeness of God, who has endless power, wisdom, goodness and love.
“They do it on their own. Interestingly, scientific studies are showing that biology may play an important role in morality and altruism: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct”
That is not physical science, my friend, that is metaphysics, an idea based on a worldview. It cannot be proven except by reasoned discourse regarding the inference and logic. Catholic theology was way ahead of this even back in the Middle Ages because it recognizes the difference between the physical and the non-physical. One of atheism’s fatal flaws always has been the denial of anything non-material about the human — even as the ones offering such explanations use their own minds to deny they have one. “I have the purpose in life of proving there is no purpose in life.” Um, yeah.
rt,
“One question (not my only one) is whether theism can answer those questions either.”
If you are atheist and reject Catholic doctrine, perhaps it would help if you first understood what you rejected. The three statements are not how Catholicism explains the origin of our thoughts.
*We* are created by God, in His likeness and image, and thus we have two powers of the soul: 1) we can learn (thinking) 2) we can love (willing). God knows everything, even our thoughts, and love us perfectly. He is perfect goodness and wisdom, perfect love. So, we would say, our higher ideals are because we are created by an all-powerful, all-loving God.
We can know that God exists, even if we cannot fully comprehend what perfect wisdom, justice, beauty, goodness, and love are. We know those ideals exist, and know we strive for perfection, even if we cannot put into words or thoughts exactly what the perfection of such ideals would be.
But — we do not say that since we cannot understand something completely, we therefore have no idea of something at all. Mathematics would never have developed under such absurd forfeitures.
rt,
Second question…
“My second question is this: where does your belief in God come from — specifically, your belief in your particular view of God and its accompanying theology (out of the many views out there)?”
It comes from the belief that Christ really lived, died, and rose again.
You seem, in the rest of that question, to be talking about morality specifically…
“You still have to make your own choice with the limited and imperfect mind that humans have. So if your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way can the religious person claim that her moral views have a superior grounding?”
Before I converted I did not realize the need for a moral code. Like you, I thought I could just figure out what was right and wrong, or that it didn’t really matter. Now I think of it like this — based on authoritative teaching.
Say I want to be a chemist. However, I believe (erroneously and arrogantly) that doing chemistry depends “on my own mind” (to use your words). So I prance into the laboratory and start making my own decisions without accepting any higher authority or training. I figure, “I’ll test some things and along the way, figure out what I need to know.”
What might happen? Well, I might blow the place up self-climbing my way up the lonely learning curve. I might get some things right, but ultimately I’d be a whole lot more effective at actually doing something productive if I took the time to learn what has been learned already. I’d do a lot better if I trust the authority, even when something at first didn’t seem to make sense.
Do you see the analogy?
Stacy, no one here is suggesting that a person should take up an exploration of morality by ignoring all thought that came before. No one.
“Before I converted I did not realize the need for a moral code. Like you…”
Though I’m sure you didn’t intend it as such, that’s quite an insult, and describes me not at all (nor does the rest of that sentence).
“It comes from the belief that Christ really lived, died, and rose again.”
My point is that this is a belief that you must evaluate and accept on your own, using the limited and imperfect human mind.
“Now I think of it like this — based on authoritative teaching.”
My point is that your decision to accept this teaching as authoritative is a decision you must arrive at on your own, using the limited and imperfect human mind.
So if your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way can the religious person claim that her moral views have a superior grounding?
First, let’s not talk in terms of superior or inferior, I prefer to avoid such peremptory language. I have friends who are not religious and those aren’t terms I’d use. It implies insult from the beginning.
Let’s speak in terms of what is true and what is not, and hopefully you understand that truth is objective – it’s true regardless of emotions.
You realize that we need a moral code to live a good life. True, we do.
So where does a person derive one from? How does one decide which authorities represent truth and which do not?
For the chemist wandering into a lab, to return to the analogy, how does he decide which professor is telling the truth about chemistry, and which one is misleading him?
If everything is just left up to one’s own mind, then anyone could do anything in the lab and call it progress, but would it really be?
“For the chemist wandering into a lab, to return to the analogy, how does he decide which professor is telling the truth about chemistry, and which one is misleading him?”
He uses his own mind. Do you have another way of him making this decision that does not involve him using his mind?
Can the human mind recognize truth, or is it incapable?
Many philosophers have asked this question. Some say the human mind cannot arrive at any truth, some say it can. I fall into the latter group. (Science sort of requires you to believe that.)
You didn’t really answer the question. You just said, “The mind.”
How? What criteria determine whether or not something is true? Or do you think there is no truth, and personal truth is just whatever a person thinks in his mind? (I.e. subjectivism)
Okay, we need to backtrack, because we’re having two separate conversations. Let’s go back to your statement that inspired my comment that you’re now responding to:
“…someday you may wonder where those higher ideals came from, and why you have them. Atheism cannot answer those questions.”
So I will rephrase my question: If your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way does theism provide an answer to those questions that atheism does not?
Or…
If your decision to adopt [the laws of chemistry] depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s [chemical code] depends on his own mind, then in what way does [chem class] provide an answer to those questions that [skipping chem class] does not?
I’m trying to communicate a point about 1) authority and 2) the ability to recognize truth.
Or…
If your decision to adopt [a belief about chemistry chemistry] depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s [belief about chemistry] depends on his own mind, then in what way does [belief that your chemistry professor is all-knowing and all-powerful] provide an answer to those questions that [skepticism that your chemistry professor is all-knowing and all-powerful] does not?
Seriously, I have no idea what point you’re trying to communicate.
How about we leave the chemistry metaphor aside and focus the question: If your decision to adopt your religious moral code depends on your own mind, AND the atheist’s moral code depends on his own mind, then in what way does theism provide an answer to those questions that atheism does not?
Because the believer has an authoritative and proven source for his moral code, just like the chem student has an authoritative and proven source for his chemical laws.
You ask me how I know it is proven? Well, just like when I was studying chemistry, or anything else, I discovered that the teachers who passed on the truth had manifest success at applying those truths. When I tried what they taught, what they said would happen, happened. When I applied the rules in my own life, even at times before I understood why they were true, I discovered they were, in fact, true. They worked.
Where does the atheist get his moral code, if not from a higher source than himself? He is like the one who enters the lab thinking he’ll just figure things out as he goes. It’s not a good way to go through the lab of life.
“…someday you may wonder where those higher ideals came from, and why you have them. Atheism cannot answer those questions.”
Can atheism answer these questions? From where does your moral code come?
Don’t say (again), “The mind!” I’m asking **how does the mind know** what is true and what is not. What empirical evidence do you have that moral code A is better than moral code B? How do you know?
You say, “We try things too and see if they work.”
OK, who’s the authority? No one, anyone? A mixture of people?
And if there’s a moral code proven to work, why reject it?
“Well, just like when I was studying chemistry, or anything else, I discovered that the teachers who passed on the truth had manifest success at applying those truths. When I tried what they taught, what they said would happen, happened. When I applied the rules in my own life, even at times before I understood why they were true, I discovered they were, in fact, true. They worked.”
Nothing in this explanation necessarily entails a belief in God. In fact, you’ve left God quite out of your explanation.
“OK, who’s the authority? No one, anyone? A mixture of people?”
The same person who is the authority in your case: You. You applied these rules and decided that they worked.
Which leads inexorably to the question:
Why did they work?
Why these and not others?
Why are we able to learn these rules about chemistry that work, while dogs and compassionate dolphins cannot?
Hmmm.
Maybe they work because they reflect the intention embedded in reality by the Creator.
Maybe we can learn them because the Creator intends for us to understand Him better, by noticing that reality is not random, or the outcome of a given mind’s individual decision.
Reality is remarkably undemocratic in this way, isn’t it?
A million wrong ways to achieve a given outcome in chemistry.
One right way.
Not subject to a vote of individual minds, by the way.
Only subject to experimental verification or falsification, which can be observed by every mind.
Over and over again.
Maybe the dogs and the dolphins can’t do this because the Creator has made us in His own image and likeness, has imbued us with a spark of creative intelligence which allows us to discover the intentions embedded in reality by the Creator.
“Reality is remarkably undemocratic in this way, isn’t it?
A million wrong ways to achieve a given outcome in chemistry.
One right way.”
How does that work, Rick?
Everyone in the “Lab” has decided that the earth rotates around the sun. You’ve concluded the opposite.
Yet, there’s only one interpretation of reality? Similarly, you’ve concluded there’s a one-to-one interpretation of allegory, metaphor and symbol; yet multiple interpretations of Jesus?
rt,
“Nothing in this explanation necessarily entails a belief in God. In fact, you’ve left God quite out of your explanation.”
No, I didn’t. I left out *your* definition of God. God — the all-wise, all-knowing, unlimited being who created everything out of nothing — would be the ultimate authority on how to live a good life though. And if He told us some rules, they’ll be true. Are the Ten Commandments good rules to by or not? Study the life of Christ. Good rules to live by?
“The same person who is the authority in your case: You. You applied these rules and decided that they worked.”
That statement lays travesty to basic logic. Any first grader, having learned his ABC’s, would not walk out of class and credit himself for choosing that set of symbols to read.
Mjeck says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
“Everyone in the “Lab” has decided that the earth rotates around the sun.”
>> Since they have no experimental demonstration of this belief, it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, assertion.
“You’ve concluded the opposite.”
>> Because the opposite happens to be metaphysically more defensible, and better-supported by existing experimental evidence.
“That statement lays travesty to basic logic. Any first grader, having learned his ABC’s, would not walk out of class and credit himself for choosing that set of symbols to read.”
That’s an accusation, not an analysis or argument. If you did not intend to present such purely pragmatic criteria for determining truth based on your personal evaluation of your personal experience, you should not have written:
“I discovered that the teachers who passed on the truth had manifest success at applying those truths. When I tried what they taught, what they said would happen, happened. When I applied the rules in my own life, even at times before I understood why they were true, I discovered they were, in fact, true. They worked.”
rt,
A child can credit an authority for teaching him something he wouldn’t have found on his own, while still, on applying that knowledge later, appreciate that what he was taught was true and good. That doesn’t suddenly render the authority non-existent. That’s just silly.
You seem to be getting offended and avoiding my questions, so I’ll let you have the last word and move on. Thanks!
But Stacy, you are still the one who — even by your own criteria — has to decide whether to accept him as an authority.
“You seem to be getting offended and avoiding my questions.”
The funny part is I’ve been thinking the same thing about you!
Stacy,
“Social orders based on the idea that there is no God.”
Are you referring to social darwinism? If so, you are wrong in assuming that being an atheist leads automatically to being a social darwinist. In fact, I think it’s probably true that most atheists aren’t social darwinists.
“God created everything. That’s how.”
To quote Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
“What’s immoral about defending yourself from unjust attackers?”
It was reactionary, but I wouldn’t say it was defensive. The Turks cut off access to Jerusalem in 1071. Pope Urban II called for the first crusade in 1095. That’s 24 years later. It was the Turks who were then on the defensive and the crusaders who were on the offensive. Also, I find it interesting that Pope Urban II claimed that all who died fighting would have their sins immediately forgiven. I suppose that’s a good way to entice men to join a holy war.
“What? Did you think being Catholic meant you were no longer human — fallen and sinful?”
I think we’re opperating on two different definitions of “human” here. I reject the definition of “fallen and sinful”. That’s not scientific. Human refers to a particular species. I never said Catholics weren’t human. They’re just like everybody else – animals living on one small planet in a vaste Universe and part of a species just beginning to learn its place in the cosmos. That’s not demeaning at all. What is demeaning in my eyes is to tell newborn children that they’re sinful and broken from the start and must worship a diety in order to be fixed. I fail to understand how that’s a good message.
“How could you prove that though?”
I’ve provided examples of people who follow no religion doing great things. They don’t do those things because they are told to. They do them because they want to. Any explanation of “God is the ultimate reason” to that seems superfluous and unprovable to me, and to many others.
“They demonstrate that they are made in the image and likeness of God, who has endless power, wisdom, goodness and love.”
See previous paragraph.
“One of atheism’s fatal flaws always has been the denial of anything non-material about the human…”
Technically, being an atheist says nothing about your views about the supernatural besides gods. Things like ghosts and such, for example. Rejecting anything non-material would be materialism. Different terms. Of course, people use multiple terms to describe themselves (atheist, materialist, and secular humanist, for example).
There’s a page I should have linked you too a long time ago, and I regret that I didn’t think about it until now. r/atheism has a great FAQ, and I would recomend that you read through it carefully. It probably explains some of the points I’m trying to make much better than I can, especially regarding morality.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/faq
John,
“Are you referring to social darwinism?”
No, or maybe, but Social Darwinism is relatively modern term and has never actually been implemented in a society as a social order. It’s only been used to describe past events. I’ve made it clear, repeatedly and in the original post referencing Pope Paul VI, that I’m speaking of Communism.
It is irrelevant what most atheists today call themselves, the point was:
“This isn’t calling all atheists evil people, it is a warning that atheist philosophies about social order are seriously flawed.”
Pope Paul VI and others who warned of the logical end of Communism were right. It 1) was based on atheistic philosophies (the idea that there is no God) and 2) while Communism may have provided for the people for a time, it led to seriously flawed social orders where man was elevated as god and provider.
“If so, you are wrong in assuming that being an atheist leads automatically to being a social darwinist. In fact, I think it’s probably true that most atheists aren’t social darwinists.”
I don’t know about that. Whether most have come to their senses or not, it is not arguable that Social Darwinism is also an atheistic ideology for social order. It’s good if people are seeing that making excuses for wide-spread evil is completely not helpful to mankind.
“To quote Carl Sagan, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.”
There is extraordinary evidence. I have daily empirical evidence. There are countless miracles proven by the Church. There are no logical reasons to deny the existence of God or the death and resurrection of Christ. The Church has survived as a hierarchical social order, a community, for 2,000 years, a moral miracle itself because the Church has led the way for social improvements for all her history. Like I said, the ascendancy of the Catholic Church was the most liberating event in human history.
It’s not that extraordinary evidence doesn’t exist. It’s that some people refuse to see it or try to know it. A scientists could conduct an experiment and the data could point most emphatically to a conclusion, but the scientist could still say, “No, I don’t see it.”
I’ve never met an atheist who could articulate what he actually rejects. That’s not an insult, it might be a challenge.
“It was reactionary, but I wouldn’t say it was defensive. The Turks cut off access to Jerusalem in 1071. Pope Urban II called for the first crusade in 1095. That’s 24 years later. It was the Turks who were then on the defensive and the crusaders who were on the offensive. Also, I find it interesting that Pope Urban II claimed that all who died fighting would have their sins immediately forgiven. I suppose that’s a good way to entice men to join a holy war.”
Please cite your sources. You must know there is tremendous misinformation out there because (nothing new!) people do what they can to harm the Church. (I’d offer the history of Galileo, but I don’t want to derail the conversation.)
“What is demeaning in my eyes is to tell newborn children that they’re sinful and broken from the start and must worship a diety in order to be fixed. I fail to understand how that’s a good message.”
First, we aren’t operating on all that different definitions of human, except my definition includes our origin and purpose in life, and those things that make us human like intelligence and love. Yours reduces us all to irrational animals.
Second, I catechize my children as thoroughly as I can, and (see above statements about atheists never articulating what they reject accurately) I have never spoken such words to a newborn. I promise. Not even to my 9 yo. Maybe this is material for a new post. Some atheists even go so far as to say religious training is abusive. Thanks for not going there.
“I’ve provided examples of people who follow no religion doing great things.”
That doesn’t prove they did it without God, if you understand what we mean by God. (Again, see previous statement about atheists and accuracy). A Catholic would also say they did those things because they wanted to – it’s part of the Trinitarian doctrine.
“Any explanation of “God is the ultimate reason” to that seems superfluous and unprovable to me, and to many others.”
This is where I ask for your definition of what constitutes proof. I’ve discovered that many atheists consider proof to be something physical that you can point to, but even when they say that, they realize that such things as logical proofs – things demonstrable by reasoned discourse – also exist.
Thanks for the link I’ll check it out.
This is where I see Godless Socialist society going – They keep changing laws to include more – they also were killing (legally) babies that were born that would not leave “productive lives” What’s next???? Nazi Germany??? Stalin’s Russia??? where life had the same value?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/euthanasia-is-out-of-control-in-the-netherlands-new-dutch-statistics
John,
I read through that link. Interesting reading, but there are numerous, numerous strawmen type arguments,and numerous contradictions in the reasoning.
Just one example, one we hear over and over again — the one about the First Cause. Man, that was some amazing philosophy from the ancient Greeks, namely Aristotle and Plato. It was preserved by the Church and expanded upon by scholars, most notably, St. Thomas Aquinas.
It’s laughable how the people who write that stuff think that some of the greatest and most prolific minds of history just missed those would-be “gotcha” moments. I’ve read some of these men’s works and, trust me, some r/atheism FAQ’s compiler didn’t have an epiphany that never occurred to Aristotle, Plato or Aquinas.
The compiler recommends this question, “Then what caused this god?” Honestly??? Does he/she really think that obvious question didn’t occur to these great minds? It shows one thing: the person that wrote that has NEVER read Aristotle, Plato, or Aquinas, or any summary of any of their arguments.
John, I’m not directing that at you, just gets a little frustrating. You might be interested in this, if only for the exercise:
http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm#13
It’s one of the works by Aquinas, referencing Aristotle and Plato, about the arguments for the existence of God, with the Latin next to it. This is a summary even, there are longer works that break down each point further.
Stacy,
My apologies again for taking so long. That’s what happens when you have a busy work week, a weekend of sickness, and Doctor Who on Netflix.
“I’ve made it clear, repeatedly and in the original post referencing Pope Paul VI, that I’m speaking of Communism.”
Ok, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. We’ve come full circle, I think. According to Wikipedia, here’s the definition of atheism: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities [aka agnostic atheism]. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities [aka gnostic atheism].” I don’t want to go on a tangent on the correct use of “atheist” and “agnostic” right now, but I think that definition is pretty clear. Also according to Wikipedia, the definition of communism is “…a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.” Please note that that does not say anything about belief, or lack of belief, in gods. Nor does the definition of atheism say anything about politics or government. It is completely false that being an atheist automatically leads one to being a communist. It is also false that a society of people who have become atheists on their own without it being forced upon them will automatically lead to communism. A government which does ban religion and forces atheism is advocating State Atheism. That is something totally different than citizens making the decision on their own and I don’t approve of it. It’s probably safe to say that most atheists don’t advocate State Atheism.
Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker did an excellent job of explaining all this on an episode of The Atheist Experience TV show. Here’s the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8547v3sDk&feature=youtu.be&t=44s
There’s also this nice little summary: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_communists_atheists
I can understand Pope Paul VI writing what he did because he was the leader of the Catholic Church, after all. But it was during the Cold War, don’t forget. We’ve now reached a time where atheists are much more more willing to admit their disbelief and are proving the atheism-communism correlation to be outdated and just plain wrong. I really wish you could see that.
“There is extraordinary evidence. I have daily empirical evidence. There are countless miracles proven by the Church.”
Can you provide specific examples of situations that could without any doubt have no other explanation other than a supernatural one?
“I’ve never met an atheist who could articulate what he actually rejects. That’s not an insult, it might be a challenge.”
It’s pretty simple. I do not believe that any gods exist. The reason is that any explanations that have been given for their existence are unsatisfactory to me. They contain logical problems or there is a lack of evidence, for example. To be a little more specific for this discussion, I do not believe that the Christian God exists. I reject the notion that a man named Jesus (which actually translates to Joshua, interestingly) was born of a virgin, was the incarnation of God as a man, performed miracles (a pretty vague term, really), and rose from the dead to ascend into heaven.
“Please cite your sources [regarding the Crusades].”
Certainly. Forgive me for not doing so before. The Wikipedia article for the Crusades seems to be pretty thorough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
The section titled “Pope Urban II” talks about what I had mentioned (dates and promises made). Also be sure to read the section “Western European situation”. The last paragraph goes into more detail about how the promise of “remission of sins” was interpreted by crusaders.
I also found this site to be useful: http://mrkash.com/activities/crusades.html
“First, we aren’t operating on all that different definitions of human, except my definition includes our origin and purpose in life, and those things that make us human like intelligence and love. Yours reduces us all to irrational animals.”
I don’t want to derail this conversation too much from morality, but regarding origin, there is tons of evidence that humans are primates and share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. There isn’t any evidence that humans were created by a supernatural deity. If you do have some evidence, though, I would genuinely be interested in it. As far as a purpose is concerned, I don’t think humans as a whole have a god-given purpose. However, I do think that individuals can create a purpose for themselves.
I also find it interesting that you used the phrase “reduces us all to irrational animals.” I’ve seen that viewpoint expressed a lot. We like to think that we’re very high and mighty, created by God with a purpose, much more important than all the other animals on Earth. It’s easy to see why. We’re conscious of our own existence. And so we don’t want to admit that we’re animals along with ants and cockroaches and naked mole rats. We want to be special. But I would argue that it’s very much possible to appreciate the existence of humans and the rest of the universe without creating a supernatural origin story. Learning how the universe evolves and the history of life on Earth is really interesting. In my mind it makes everything great and special, rather than, as you say, reducing us.
“This is where I ask for your definition of what constitutes proof.”
This is something I should have corrected before when you asked for proof that people can be good without God. But I’ll try to now. “Proof” is really the wrong thing to ask for. The scientific method doesn’t deal with proof, it deals with evidence. There is a difference. So what I should have said is that I have evidence that it is possible for people to be good without God.
You’re right that the scientific method only deals with the natural universe. But it’s the best method we have for acquiring knowledge and there is no conclusive evidence of any supernatural realms.
As for logic, of course atheists can account for it. Here’s a good YouTube video that talks about that better than I can on my own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VFwFDUNf9M
I started reading that work of Aquinas you linked me to, but I haven’t had a chance to finish it yet. Give me a couple days and I will, and then I can comment further on it and the First Cause.
Hi John,
“I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.”
You haven’t, key parts emphasized. To repeat: “This isn’t calling all atheists evil people, it is a warning that atheist philosophies about social order are seriously flawed.”
Pope Paul VI and others who warned of the logical end of Communism were right. It 1) was based on atheistic philosophies (the idea that there is no God) and 2) while Communism may have provided for the people for a time, it led to seriously flawed social orders where man was elevated as god and provider.
Communism at a national level was not born of Christian philosophy, or of any other religion. It was atheistic, i.e. based on forming a society not founded on any moral law from God. Read Karl Marx. He was an atheist, his ideas (key word, ideas) were derived from his philosophies based on his atheism. Christianity did not inform his conscience or intellect.
“It is completely false that being an atheist automatically leads one to being a communist.”
No one, I emphatically repeat, no one, has said this. This is drastically different than what I describe above.
All atheists are communists. FALSE
Communism (Marxism, the kind employed by states in the 50′s and 60′s) grew up from atheistic philosophies. TRUE.
And to the video, is communism synonymous with atheism? Good grief no. It (Marxism, the kind of communism that nations were using then) did grow out of atheistic philosophies. After watching that video, it seems the only thing those guys are interested in saying is, “Nooo, don’t call us bad.” For them to say that people were just groping around in the dark looking for some way to differentiate Communist Russia and the United States, and all they came up with was atheism, is just borderline dishonest. His next comment supports what I’ve been saying…communism suppressed religion. It did. Big mistake.
His next comment about how America suddenly came up phrases that mention God just to differentiate ourselves from Russia is, ah, I don’t know, stupid? America was started by Christians, Christians established it, and Christians fought and died to maintain the freedoms you enjoy. Christians are still the majority. We didn’t suddenly conjure up the name of God in the 1950′s because of atheists.
I stopped there, right after he said, again, that people think communism and atheism are synonymous.
“We’ve now reached a time where atheists are much more more willing to admit their disbelief and are proving the atheism-communism correlation to be outdated and just plain wrong. I really wish you could see that.”
I have maintained from the beginning that I am referencing a 1964 document that was prophetic. Even back in Marx’s time the contemporary pope saw the logical conclusion of communism and warned against it.
If atheists have evolved past that today, having seen the flaws of communism, great. I believe they have. They didn’t come to these conclusions on their own though. This was a conclusion promoted and urged to be heeded by Christians. No one looks today to communist countries as the bastion of freedom.
John,
Continued…
“Can you provide specific examples of situations that could without any doubt have no other explanation other than a supernatural one?”
There are over 10,000 saints, and the majority of them have had miracles approved. The canonization process is lengthy (less so now) and required independent and private corroboration from multiple sources. I have a friend who’s little boy is the subject of a Fulton Sheen miracle. They don’t even allow anyone to call it a miracle yet, it’s an “alleged” miracle because the investigation takes years. Read the lives of the saints. It’s interesting stuff. The only way to discredit it is to say that thousands and thousands of people are just lying.
“It’s pretty simple. I do not believe that any gods exist.”
I know, but based on what? What if I said, “It’s pretty simple. I do not believe that evolution occurred.” You might ask me if I ever studied any of the scientific evidence. If I said, “No, why bother, I don’t believe it,” you’d probably suggest that I know what I’m rejecting before I so assuredly reject it, right?
“To be a little more specific for this discussion, I do not believe that the Christian God exists.”
See my latest post.
“Certainly…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades”
That supports what I said, it was a defensive war. What is immoral about defending yourself?
More later…kid screaming.
Stacy,
I’m going to try to refocus the discussion a little bit again because at this point we’re going on a lot of tangents. I want to keep the focus on atheism and communism.
I want to go back to your post. First, you asked if anyone had “concerns about atheism”. Then you provided a quote from Pope Paul VI and commentary on it which in a nutshell serves to show how being an atheist leads to not having morals. You said that it “confuses the mind, informs man that there is no purpose for his existence, and that he can do nothing to solve life’s problems. It ‘degrades’ and ‘saddens’ human life.” To that specifically I would say that in this day and age, that has been shown to be false. Non-belief in a god does not mean that I think I can do nothing to solve any problems that come my way. I also don’t think it degrades me. As I said before, I recognize and accept the evidence for our evolutionary history and how we relate to other primates. We are animals, we just so happen to be the most dominant species on the Earth. That in no way automatically degrades or saddens human life. I choose to look at the Earth and the universe with almost a child-like wonder still. It all amazes me.
You go on to give some examples to demonstrate how non-belief in gods has caused problems. You mention marriage. I would respond by pointing out that Christian couples get divorced all the time. They suffer the same problems as non-believers. The reason? We’re all humans. Atheism is not solely at fault for failed marriages, nor is it solely at fault for things such as people having children outside of marriage. I think to say that is to over-simplify a very complicated situation.
Next you mention abortion and pro-creation. Again, this seems like an over-simplification to me. Relating to “degrading human life”, non-belief in gods does not mean that I suddenly find human life invaluable. Ask a bunch of atheists their opinions on abortion and you’ll likely get many different answers. The reason is because it’s a very complicated issue. People have different opinions on how to define “life” and when life starts, on when abortion is ok, and so on. I do not think this debate is even close to being settled yet. I’m sure there are atheists that are personally against abortion. Also, just because someone thinks the option of abortion should be available to women does not mean that they think it should be used frequently or that the choice should be made lightly. Using phrases such as “significance of garbage” and “turned killing into a business” simply demonstrates this over-simplification and in my opinion it shows that you’re not taking a deep and comprehensive look at the issue.
As for medicine that hastens death, that is up to that individual and their doctors. I don’t think it’s up to me or you to say whether their decision is good or bad. And societies full of rebellion and violence cannot just be outright attributed to non-belief in gods. Again, that’s a huge over-simplification.
Then you give another quote from Pope Paul: “Any social system based on these principles is doomed to utter destruction. Atheism, therefore, is not a liberating force, but a catastrophic one, for it seeks to quench the light of the living God.” The problem with this statement is that, as I just showed, these over-simplified issues don’t necessarily follow from a non-belief in gods. Looking at the quote in context, he just before it mentions “basic propositions of atheism”. The only proposition from atheism is that one does not believe in gods. Nothing else. Therefore, you can’t say that any social order or system which does not fully integrate belief in the existence of gods is doomed to failure.
At this point, in your commentary and in Pope Paul’s encyclical, communism is brought up. An association has been made. Pope Paul first gives reasons and explanations as to why he feels atheism is bad, then he brings up communism and connects the two. But here again, it’s complicated. Yes, Marxist Communism had atheism (the definition only being a disbelief in gods, remember) as part of it. However, one must remember that it went far beyond that as well. It called for the abolition of religion, i. e. state-imposed atheism. That answers.com link I provided in my previous comment gives a good summary of what I’m getting at. Basically, atheism is not the sole or main reason for that type of communist oppression. Demand for control and power is. Religion was seen as getting in the way of that and State-imposed atheism was used to eliminate religion and get it out of the way so that power could be obtained. Another way of putting it is that Marxist Communism may have used atheism, but atheism does not automatically lead to Marxist Communist oppression.
So this is my problem with all these claims made by the Pope and then expounded on by you. It seems to me that he views disbelief in the Christian God as always bad all the time; that it will lead to lack of morals and ultimately to communist oppression as it spreads across a society. It doesn’t surprise me. He was the Pope. Of course he’s going to view the Christian God as necessary. But, as I’ve said previously, we’ve reached a time where there is evidence against that. Everyday, people with no belief in gods demonstrate that they are moral, without praying, without worshiping, without reading holy texts and without exclaiming any devotion to any deity. I feel like Pope Paul should have titled that section “Communism a Growing Evil” or something like that. What he did was start with his position that atheism is terrible, then saw that it was a component in oppressive Communism, then tried to make a “guilt by association” argument. He reduced the word “atheism” to a buzzword and tried to draw an extreme conclusion from it. A conclusion which just doesn’t hold any water and it bothers me to see it exclaimed time and time again.
I also want to quickly reply to a few of the points you made in your last comment without going off on a bunch of tangents again, but I’ll do that in another comment.
A few quick responses to your last comment, Stacy.
Regarding the video of Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker, I linked to it because I felt that it addressed the ultimate message of what Pope Paul and you were saying, i. e. atheism is evil because it lead to communism. Also, I’m glad you make the distinction that communism (at least that implementation of it) suppressed religion. Because that’s true and of course it was a big mistake. Just please remember that that doesn’t mean that atheism necessarily suppresses religion.
You say that you stopped watching after only a couple of minutes. I think you should watch the rest of it because they go on to make many more good points. They did not say that we never used religious connotations before the Red Scare of the 1950′s. What they said was that we increased our usage a lot in order to differentiate ourselves from communist Russia. And that can not be denied. Also, they never claimed that we increased usage of religion because of atheists. That’s not true. We increased usage of it because of oppressive communism which wrongly imposed atheism. So what you said there isn’t really factually accurate, I don’t think. And to quickly address the role of Christianity throughout our history, here’s a great video which clearly explains that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs&
I’m perplexed by this statement: “If atheists have evolved past that today, having seen the flaws of communism, great. I believe they have.” You seem to be suggesting that atheism was somehow born out of communism or the result of it, or that all atheists at one time would have been communists and that that has now changed. Or something like that. Is that accurate? Because if so, it is wholeheartedly untrue.
Regarding miracles, I would first like to say that the number of saints in existence and the number of people who accept them as saints means absolutely nothing. A large number of people believing something to be true does not in and of itself make that thing true. To put it another way, there’s a nice quote attributed to James Randi, though I’ll admit I can’t find a source for it: No amount of belief can make something a fact. That’s important to remember. Now, you do mention one specific example: a boy supposedly healed by the intercession of Fulton Sheen. After researching, I’m assuming you mean the boy who was born with a knotted umbilical cord? If so, I understand the claim to be that his heart started beating 61 minutes later after the mother repeatedly thought of Fulton Sheen and prayed. That’s according to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/nyregion/archbishop-fulton-j-sheen-advances-toward-sainthood.html. All I have to say to that is I do not accept it. There is no evidence that the praying actually worked; that it alone is what made the boys heart start beating. There is no way to test that hypothesis according to the scientific method. I think a more honest answer to how it happened would be to simply say “I don’t know”.
You again asked why I don’t believe in gods. I already explained why: lack of evidence. Then you seem to argue that it’s because I haven’t studied anything about Christianity. That is wrong. I used to be a Christian.
As for the Crusades, I think I figured out the confusion. You seem to mean “defensive war” as in one nation attacking another which then has to defend itself, which would be accurate. In this case, the crusaders attacking the Turks. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_war. I interpreted it as the opposite; the crusaders being on the defensive. However, if you are going by that definition from Wikipedia, then your question (What is immoral about defending yourself?) doesn’t make sense. The crusaders weren’t defending themselves. They initiated the crusades. The Turks were the ones defending. There’s a big difference between defending and responding.
John,
Quickly, will respond better later.
Just because I use cogent language doesn’t mean I’m oversimplifying those social issues, I’ve given them lots of thought and writing. I know every in and out of every argument on both sides of all those issues. I doubt there is any view anyone could discuss that I haven’t already considered. Believe me, I’ve heard it all.
“Demand for control and power is.”
That was the basis of the warning, and it is why communism became oppressive. Without man believing there is someone wiser than himself, beyond himself, he makes himself god. Power and control.
I tried to come back yesterday and finish, but honestly, after reading that California teacher’s award-winning education page with blatant, and horrible factual inaccuracies and anti-Catholic bigotry, I was left speechless. I will expose this guy. He is teaching lies about Christianity as part of a history curriculum (for crying out loud!), he is messing with the minds of youth. His factual lies about Galileo were disturbing enough.
I do grow weary of the intellectual sloth of people like him who find it expedient to promote false talking points for popularity rather than to do the work and actually bother to read real history. I doubt he has read Galileo’s actual writing, or that of his inquisitors. I have, so have many of my friends. It was no wonder his portrayal of the Crusades were also to your liking. It was, however, and unfortunately, wrong.
“…atheism does not automatically lead to Marxist Communist oppression…”
Again, no one said that. It is a historical fact that atheistic philosophy did lead to Marxist Communist oppression.
Perhaps you can explain the anonymous commenter who, even after I had to censor his profanity (the infamous f*** word) because I have little children running around, left the same word again — on purpose, just to be hateful? He’s atheist, thus, he makes up his own moral code. So much for assuming we all just know how to be good people. (A sloppy aside, sorry.)
John,
“Just please remember that that doesn’t mean that atheism necessarily suppresses religion.”
I can coexist and be friendly with an atheist who doesn’t want to take away my right to worship, however, what concerns many of us is that so many atheists do want to do just that. The New Atheists are different than atheists of the past. I have met many who – without even possessing a smudge of knowledge about what they reject – want to eradicate religious thinking. I asked one of them why once. You know what he said? “Because religion tells you what to think.” That had to be one of the most hypocritical comments anyone has ever made to me.
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs&z”
John, for every atheist propaganda film, I can find people who already refuted it. Cherry-picking quotes without considering the context is bad scholarship, and all this proves to me is that atheists are willing to say or believe anything that builds up empty beliefs. See this, no fair dismissing it because it’s from a conservative, Christian website. Your links have all been from atheists websites. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=125
Bottom line: It’s true, the federal government does not establish a religion for the United States. That in no way implies the people are not Christian. Our laws protect freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a Christian concept.
“You seem to be suggesting that atheism was somehow born out of communism or the result of it, or that all atheists at one time would have been communists and that that has now changed. Or something like that. Is that accurate? Because if so, it is wholeheartedly untrue.”
Huh? I’ve gone out of my way several times now to say exactly, precisely what I mean. I don’t know why you keep misunderstanding. Communism was born out of an atheistic philosophy. That is not saying that the reverse is true.
“Regarding miracles, I would first like to say that the number of saints in existence and the number of people who accept them as saints means absolutely nothing.”
Well, there you go. You can say that about anything at all and all you will have established is that you are unwilling to even try to understand things.
“Now, you do mention one specific example: a boy supposedly healed by the intercession of Fulton Sheen.”
Yes, I know the family. I am honored to run this website. http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2011/09/16/61-minutes/
“You again asked why I don’t believe in gods. I already explained why: lack of evidence. Then you seem to argue that it’s because I haven’t studied anything about Christianity. That is wrong. I used to be a Christian.”
Were you Catholic? Why did you leave Christianity?
“As for the Crusades, I think I figured out the confusion. You seem to mean “defensive war” as in one nation attacking another which then has to defend itself, which would be accurate.”
Why did the crusaders attach the Turks? See this article, particularly this part:
“So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.”
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html
Slight correction,
“[Humans] are willing to say or believe anything that builds up empty beliefs”
“Can you name one society that has turned away from God, and has, as a result, flourished into a free land that holds high the ideals of justice, freedom, and dignity for each and every human?”
Norway
The following is a partial list of Norwegian Christian church arsons in 1992 by anti-Christian groups reported by English-language media sources:
23 May: Storetveit Church in Bergen.[45]
6 June: Fantoft Stave Church in Bergen.[46] Varg Vikernes was suspected of the crime, but denied this;[43] he was not convicted.[46]
1 August: Revheim Church in Stavanger.[46]
21 August: Holmenkollen Chapel in Oslo.[47]
1 September: Ormøya Church in Oslo.[47]
13 September: Skjold Church in Vindafjord.[47] Varg Vikernes and Samoth were convicted for this.
October: Hauketo Church in Oslo.[47]
24 December: Åsane Church in Bergen.[48] Varg Vikernes and musician Jørn Inge Tunsberg were convicted for this.[49]
25 December: a Methodist church in Sarpsborg.[48] A firefighter was killed while fighting this fire.[48]