In our world, people often question how someone could be an Atheist. But I question how in this day and age, anyone could not be an Atheist. I feel I must stress again that this is my own personal opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone; just to make you think a little. :-)
Science
We now have at our disposal so much scientific information, so many rational explanations about how the world works, that we really don't need a religion to explain it to us. Back when there was no explanation for disease, natural disasters, or other natural phenomena, it made sense to think that there was some intelligent force causing everything. But these days, that explanation simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Too Many Religions
With so many different doctrines about god(s) in the world, how can any one be right? The biggest predictor of someone's religious belief is their place of birth. If there really was one god with one doctrine, why would there be so very many different faiths around the world, and why would your faith depend on where you live? As a child, I wondered how a fair and loving god would condemn a small child in Africa to hell simply because he had not had the luxury of hearing about Christianity, and that question sticks with me to this day.
Skepticism
I've always been one to question things, so it's natural that I would question religion. I've never found any concrete proof to show that god exists, so why would I believe something in the absence of proof? When my son questions me about god or religion, I tell him he should believe whatever he can find proof of. Someone telling me that the Bible is true because the Bible says so is just circular logic that makes no sense. If that is the case, then why isn't the Koran correct because the Koran says so?
Holy Books
All holy books, including the Bible, were written by men, not a supernatural being, and men can say anything they want to. They can make stuff up, they can misinterpret, they can have poor memories. Nothing in any holy book holds any sway for me, because there is no reason to believe that any of the dictates in them are legitimate. People of faith tend to pick and choose the passages that apply to them or that feel good to them, ignoring everything else that's written in the book. It's way too subjective to take seriously, and ripe for any kind of rampant misinterpretation or misuse.
Contradictions
It makes no sense to me how there can be such variation of human life, yet we have religions that tell us we all have to act in a certain way. Why would an all-knowing god create gay people, then tell them to ignore those feelings? Why would he create women, and then tell them they are not worthy of the same rights as men? Why would he create menstruation and then tell women they're dirty when it happens? Why would he create sex as such a pleasurable means to reproduce, then tell people to never, ever do it?
If some guy walked up to you on the street and told you he was the son of god and you should listen to what he has to say so you can be saved, and furthermore, you should do this just because he said so and because god said so too, you'd probably think he was crazy and ignore him. But because a similar story happened thousands of years ago, it somehow makes sense? Just because a story is repeated enough and believed to be true by a lot of people, it doesn't make it true.
I wish believers of any religion would question their own faith using the same standards they apply to other faiths. To Christians, it's obvious that Islam is wrong. But why? Are their beliefs and stories really that much different than Christian's? Are Mormon's stories any crazier than Catholic's? With so many faiths to choose from, how can any one be the "true" faith.
Basically, I'm not going to believe anything that just makes me "feel good." If there is no rational reason for believing it, I don't see a reason to commit my life to it. I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me how to be good. I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, as I think most people do. I don't require a holy book to tell me that I shouldn't hurt or kill someone, or that I should treat others with respect or kindness.
I think the world is enough as it is, and religion is a just a distraction from finding out what's actually true in the world.
TOTALLY agree.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is prayer. Do people really think they can change God's mind? They say he's omniscient, so He already planned things happening that way. So, if He answers your prayer the way you wanted Him to it just means you wanted what He had already planned, if not, it just means you didn't. He didn't change anything for you. So you have a 50/50 chance of things going your way. Or something to that affect. Like I said, it just makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Amy! I hope you're submitting this post here: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/602/199/
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Shannon! I don't think I'll submit this, but I will write out something I didn't take 10 minutes to write and submit that. :-)
ReplyDeleteGreg, I think prayer is kind of self-absorbed. "Please god, help my football team and help my dog get over his asthma. I know there are people in the world who are suffering unimaginably, but my life is very, very important." You should check out http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/.
ReplyDeleteVery thoughful stuff about prayer.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
ReplyDeleteEpicurus [341–270 B.C.
There are Christians who more or less agree with everything you wrote here. An example:
ReplyDeletehttp://itself.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/religion-as-baggage/
Ben
This is an old post but I have been reading this blog and thought I would like to add to it. Let me just start by saying that I don’t claim to be an expert on prayer or God, but since no one is claiming to be an expert here I thought I would at least comment from the Catholic perspective to the best of my ability. The best resource, I believe, for this topic and other religious topics that pertain to the Catholic faith is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is where you will find what Catholics believe. So if I am in error of anything I say, I apologize in advance and refer you to that resource which can be found on line. You can also buy a copy for around $10. I am sure most libraries have it as well.
DeleteIf you hold the view of God as Lord and Creator, then prayer should make sense. Prayer is dialogue with God. Prayer isn’t just asking for things, it is also giving thanks for what we have already been given. The most common prayer of this type that people are familiar with is grace before meals. Another type of prayer is silent meditation where we reflect on who God is or the mysteries of God. We also pray for guidance when trying to make big decisions in our life. And of course there are prayers of praise and adoration which are due to God as Lord. This does in no way cover all forms of prayer but I am just emphasizing that prayer is more than just asking for things. The Lords’ Prayer demonstrates our dialogue with God very well. That was the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples when they asked him to teach them to pray.
Can we convince God to change his mind? Because on a human level, that is what it seems like we are trying to do. But when we ask God for something, we are doing what he commanded us to do, come to him in faith. He may very well intend to give us what we need, if but only we ask for it. That isn’t changing his mind. But that doesn’t mean he will always give us whatever we ask for. As parents, we may tell our children to come to us for things they need, but I don’t think we tell them to come to us for everything they want. And what they need isn’t always possible to give, but we may try our best to give them whatever we can. Am I saying that God has limits? No, but what I am saying is since I hold the view that he is Lord and Creator, I have faith that he knows what he is doing better than I.
Another thing to keep in mind is that God gave us free will and we don’t always exercise our free will for good. If God stopped every bad thing that we chose to do then he would be taking away our free will. Unfortunately that means we have the ability to do horrific things as well as great things depending on how we chose to exercise our freedom.
I appreciate the dialogue, but my thoughts on prayer were really just an "afterthought," and not by any means one of the main reasons I'm an atheist. So the Catholic view on prayer isn't really going to sway me any more than, say, the Hindu view of prayer. Until you can prove to me that there is something actually listening to what goes on inside my brain, the subject of prayer is really a moot point for me.
DeleteSorry about that, your point of view is clear based on what I have read so far on your blog. I should have been clearer. I was actually providing my input because of the remarks made by lavalle1417. I wasn't sure if they really didn't get prayer or were just commenting as well. It is hard to tell for sure so I thought I would add some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteBut out of curiosity, what evidence looking for? I know you have said you are agnostic so you are not completely opposed to the idea of a higher power. I think you said you just didn't believe that Christianity, for example, or any other religion can make the case that provides you with the evidence you need. I am not trying to sound critical, just asking because I really am curious.
On the topic of agnosticism, most atheists are also agnostic. The two terms address different things. If you don't "know" whether or not there's a god, then you are an agnostic. If you don't "believe" there's a god, then you are an atheist. It's a common misconception that atheists claim to know for certain that there is no god. That's not the claim of atheism. The claim is simply that we don't believe in any of the gods that have been proposed to us.
DeleteI have no idea what evidence would convince me, but I haven't seen it yet. If there was an omnipotent god, I wouldn't think it would be that hard for such a being to convince me of their mere existence.
What makes you believe there IS a god, and more specifically, that it's the Catholic one? Were you raised Catholic, and if so, do you think your belief has anything to do with your upbringing in that church? Do you think you'd be a staunch Muslim if you grew up in Saudi Arabia?
I grew up in a home that was Lutheran in name only. To be totally honest, we never attended church as a family once my entire life, we rarely spoke about religion. On rare occasions, during my teens, I would attend Mass with a Catholic friend, and I only attended Lutheran services maybe five times as a kid with either a relative, or a neighbor. In fact I started religious education when I was twelve at the request of my Mother but quit after two times because I didn’t feel like I belonged there. My Mother always encouraged me to go to church but mostly after I grew up and moved out. But I can also say that I have always believed in God, and I don’t remember a time that I didn’t. I even prayed as a child to God, primarily for help of course. And you’re right, my only real exposure to religion was Christianity. I married a Catholic and still did not attend Mass except for Christmas and sometimes Easter. I became Catholic only after my first three children received Communion. That was the first time I felt a strong desire to receive it as well. But I didn’t begin to study my faith until after two years of attending Mass regularly and only after becoming Catholic. That was when I realized I didn’t understand it well enough to explain it to anyone. But as I learned more about my faith I realized that it actually affirmed what I already believed but could not explain. I dug into other faiths as well, but the Catholic faith made sense to me.
ReplyDeleteDo I think I would be a staunch Muslim if I grew up in Saudi Arabia? Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think they have the same religious freedom we do in the U.S. so my assumption is I would most likely be Muslim. But I can’t say I would be a staunch Muslim because it took years for me to become a reasonably faithful Catholic. I don't claim to be a saint, nor would any honest Catholic make that claim about themselves, but I do feel called to be one, and I enjoy life now more than ever with that goal in mind.
Did you ever believe in God, and if so, when did you change your mind about him. Have you ever been invited to or attended a Protestant church service or a Catholic Mass, or any other religious service?
I should have clarified that I meant "do you think you'd believe in the tenets of Islam had you grown up in Saudi Arabia;" not simply "do you think you'd be Muslim." I guess my point was that your religion is much more a product of your upbringing than most people seem to want to acknowledge. The fact that Catholicism "feels" right to you does not make it true.
DeleteYes, I believed for a long time. I grew up in a "lukewarm" Lutheran home too, but I was probably the most enthusiastic one in my immediate family about it. In fact, I used to be terrified that my dad was going to go to hell because he never went to church with us. Looking back on it, it makes me sad that kids have to live with that kind of terror. As a teenager, I went to youth group regularly and did the whole confirmation thing. I actually enjoyed it and didn't have the bad church experience that a lot of my fellow atheists seemed to have. But I guess my first "aha" moment came when I took my first sociology class in college. It hadn't really occurred to me before that "no god at all" was even an option. It would take far too long to relate my entire journey to atheism here, but suffice it to say that it wasn't some traumatic life event that led me here. It was simply the product of years of honest contemplation on the subject.
And yes, I've been to many, many church services, including several Catholic Mass services, along with several other Christian denominations. None of them did anything to provide me with any evidence of the supernatural.
If it sounded like I said Catholicism feels right to me, therefore it must be true, then I didn’t make myself clear. My feeling of desire to receive communion and the fact that I feel called to be a saint are not primary reasons for my belief in the Catholic Church. I believe that those desires are a grace from God as is my belief in God from childhood in spite of my upbringing. I have never questioned if God exists, I just wasn’t confident of which faith presented the fullness of the truth of God. As I said, that came from studying the claims of the Catholic Church and comparing those claims to the claims of other religions. What the Catholic Church claims and proposes makes sense to me in light of history, and the human condition.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe in a spiritual existence after death, or do you believe that when you die you will cease to exist?
I don't see any reason to believe that there is any sort of existence after we die. Our brain stops, end of story. Just like we didn't "exist" before we were conceived. What we think of as our "mind" is really just our brain processing thoughts. And I'm ok with that. I think that the fear of death, along with the need to feel like there is some bigger cause to our lives than what is in front of us is the reason all religions continue to thrive. It sucks to think about sometimes, but yes, this is all there is. We make our own meaning in the world, and when we are gone, we will be gone. It's not romantic, but I don't think reality necessarily needs to be romanticized. It just is what it is. Which means my time here is even more important. This is not just my "practice life" while I wait for the one that comes next. This is my life, and it's going to be whatever I make of it. And when it's over, hopefully I'll have left behind a little bit of good in the world.
DeleteSo you what you are saying is that our only existence is from the time we are conceived until the moment we die. And because of that it is even more important that we recognize that this is our one and only shot at life, and we shouldn’t waste it. It does make sense to me, looking at it from your perspective, because if you are right, it would be foolish for people to waste time worshipping a being that didn’t exist in the hope of eternal bliss and to avoid eternal damnation. And it would make sense that you would want other people to take full advantage of the only, potentially very short, life they will ever get to experience. So with that belief about our existence, am I safe to assume that this is something you would hope for everyone?
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a fair summation of what I was saying. And yes, while I hope that everyone would enjoy their lives and find their own meaning, I do realize that for many people, religion is the "meaning" that they choose. And if that gives them a satisfying life, then I don't begrudge them that.
DeleteI want to say that I sincerely respect your choice of atheism. I also understand how annoying it would be, as an atheist, if someone asked you if you have been saved, or just made the assumption that you are religious and talked to you as if you agreed with them about all things eternal. And as someone who believes in God, I can honestly say that I have yet to encounter an atheist who has tried to evangelize me personally.
ReplyDeleteHowever with that being said, it does bother me when some atheists make the claim that Catholics and other people of faith are ignorant and unable to think for themselves. Because that simply isn’t true. Some of the greatest minds of the past and present age were and are Catholics as well as people of other religious faiths. They have made enormous and at times unprecedented contributions in every field, including science. I would challenge these people to take an honest look at this for themselves because they may find out that there are people they regard as respected scientists and never knew they were also religious. It is false to believe that religion opposes science or that the two are somehow incompatible.
I would disagree that religion and science are compatable. Maybe some religions or some religious people are compatable with science, but taken as a whole, I would say religion is the antithesis of science. Science starts with a premise and then attempts to prove it right or wrong, seeking the truth without regard to what the scientist wants the truth to be. Religion on the other hand, starts with a premise and then looks for evidence of its truth, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
DeleteThat being said, I'm fully aware that some of the greatest thinkers in history were/are religious. But I think they do a good job of separating their religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge. I certainly don't think all religious people are stupid or can't think for themselves. I do however think that there are many religious people who haven't thought much about the truth of their religion. They were just raised that way, and so they continue to hold those beliefs, without ever truly examining them. That doesn't make them stupid; just indoctrinated. Most adults remain in the religion they were raised in. Even you, though you were raised Lutheran and became Catholic, remained a Christian. Does that make you stupid? No. Does that make your religion right? No.
Why would it be beneficial to separate ones religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge? Scientists can study the natural world they live in as well as the entire universe with the intention of proving or disproving a premise and come to the truth while still attributing all of creation to God. Why would a religious scientist as opposed to a non-religious scientist ignore valid data in order to end up with anything other than the truth? They would still have to have their work scrutinized by other scientists before it was accepted.
ReplyDeleteYou are describing religion from your perspective as if it applies to everyone. People don‘t typically try to prove a religion before they accept it. I think what is most important, and you touched on it, is not so much which religion should you believe, but do you believe there are eternal consequences for your actions. Because if you don’t believe in eternal consequences then the only reason to choose a religion is for fellowship. But if you do believe in eternal consequences, then you should seek a religion that offers a reasonable and clearly understandable explanation for why those consequences matter, and how the Creator of the universe can provide a way to atone for them. Simple as that!
"if you do believe in eternal consequences, then you should seek a religion that offers a reasonable and clearly understandable explanation for why those consequences matter, and how the Creator of the universe can provide a way to atone for them."
DeleteWhere did you get the idea that there are "eternal consequences" to begin with? What you seem to be saying is that if you have some vague notion that what you do will have some kind of "consequence" for all of eternity, then you should find someone (in a church) to tell you what those consequences are and how to avoid them. But I'm still stuck on how you get to believe that there are such a thing as eternal consequences at all. And why on Earth would you want to form a world view that you have no reason to believe is true?
“Where did you get the idea that there are "eternal consequences" to begin with?” I am pretty sure this idea of Heaven and Hell was introduced to me by my siblings. And yes, it came to us from our exposure to Christianity. I have always believed that God exists, and I have never required proof to convince me otherwise. I have freely accepted Christianity and my belief in God. I may not always act like a Christian should, but I can repent and start over. Does that mean I am going to Heaven? God will judge me based on how I have responded, I can only put my faith in God that I will be with him.
ReplyDeleteI have, in the past, rejected the idea that God would send me or anyone who didn’t commit a horrific act to Hell because I couldn’t believe that God would do that to the people he loved. But after studying more about my faith I realized that God loves me unconditionally as I love my own children. I am the one who, through the exercise of my free will, chooses for or against God on a daily basis in many of my decisions. He honors my choice and will judge me accordingly. Only he can truly see what is in my heart. He has promised that he will provide sufficient Grace in order for me to have Salvation. It will be up to me to respond to that Grace and repent, and I have my entire life to respond.
“And why on Earth would you want to form a world view that you have no reason to believe is true?” I do have reason to believe it is true? But I don’t need scientific proof or require God to appear before me and show himself to me. It would be a whole lot easier, I agree, but of the three theological virtues, I would no longer need faith, or hope, only charity (love), since I would now have vision. And the only time I will get that vision, as far as I know, is when I die.
So you're trying to convince me that there is an all-loving god, who loves me SO much, that he will condition the safety of my eternal soul on believing in him, but he won't provide me with sufficient evidence to believe he exists, because he wants me to take it on faith? And I won't be able to have proof that he exists until after I die, when it's too late. Because. . . why?
DeleteYou said earlier that you respect my "choice" to be an atheist. My lack of belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe something I just don't believe. Can you choose to believe in dragons? So then should I somehow fake that I believe something I don't? And wouldn't God be able to tell the difference anyway? So I'd probably still go to hell, right?
And this whole "God loves me like I love my children" line has always bothered me. I don't care what my kids did; I could never condemn them to an eternity of hellfire. Could you? And for the simple infraction of not believing something that they didn't hear you say?
I apologize if I am coming across as trying to convince you of anything, that’s not what I am trying to do. I am just attempting to give you an honest answer to your questions that you posed. I know that you are Atheist and I do respect that, I guess I just view Atheism as a choice not to accept the claims of religion. I can’t say if you are going to Hell. That is not for me to say one way or the other about anyone. Only God knows our hearts.
ReplyDeleteWhy does God ask me to have faith and not reveal himself to me? I do believe he has revealed himself in his written word, in Jesus Christ his son, and through his Church. And I trust the witness testimony of his Apostles who walked with him on this earth. Even if someone has not heard, I am confident he will provide the means in order for them to make a choice at the moment of their death. Do I know this for a fact? No, but of what I do know about God, it would seem contrary to his nature of love if he didn’t.
God uses family language so I do think it is a good comparison. I, as a parent, can have greater influence over the choices my children make when they are young, but as adults, I have to accept that they are now free to make their own choices. If it goes against what I believe is best for them, I can show them a better way, but I can’t stop them from exercising their free will. If their choice is to not be with me. I would try to convince them to stay, but if they still refused, I would have to honor their decision because I can’t force them in the end. But I would always love them unconditionally.
So it is with God and his children. I believe that I was created by God to be with him forever. If I choose not to be with him, Hell is a necessary place for my choice of separation, and God will honor my choice. He didn’t create Hell, he just allowed for it. Hell is total separation from God. Since God is love, I would be choosing to be separated from love itself. I am sorry if I sound harsh but I am not sure how else to explain it other than truthfully as I understand it.
I don't think it sounds harsh, just baffling. And if you truly believe what you claim to believe isn't it then your obligation to try to convince me? After all, my soul depends on it, does it not?
DeleteI understand how everything you're saying can make sense to you, since at one time, I had more or less the same beliefs myself (Catholics and Lutherans really aren't that different in the big scheme of things). What I have a harder time understanding is how you can accept everything you're saying based on a feeling, more or less. You grew up with it, it feels right, people have always told you it's true, so it must be true, right? None of the "proof" you presented does anything for me without first having it proven to me that there is, in fact, a god, and more specifically, that it's the specific god you worship and not one of the thousands of other gods humans have worshipped throughout history.
Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that I would be endowed with an inquisical mind (supposedly by God), and then told not to use it the way it is meant to be used.
Like I said before, the world just makes sense the way it is if there is "no one minding the store," to use the words of Julia Sweeney in her brilliant one-woman show, "Letting Go of God." Incidentally, I think that show is a must see for just about anyone who wants to understand atheists (or anyone that doesn't - it's just a really good show). It's lighthearted and entertaining but very informational at the same time. And, no, I don't work for Julia Sweeney. :-)
Of course I am concerned about your soul, and I am called to evangelize. I also respect the fact that you are Atheist and don’t want to be evangelized. But I am not sure why you keep saying that I am trying to provide you with proof, because I thought I was being pretty careful not to admit that I can. If I had proof, I would be speaking to a larger audience right now. You have also said that you are not sure what evidence would convince you, you just said you haven’t seen it yet. So short of God of himself, I am not sure what to provide. So all I can do is share ideas and learn more about Atheists for my own benefit, and believe me, it has been beneficial. I’m just glad I ran into someone as polite and respectful as you.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, are you saying I am not using an inquiring mind? Because I have said, more than once I believe, that I have studied and do continue to study my faith on a regular basis as well as other religions. Are you saying that until I draw the same conclusion as you that I am not inquiring correctly?
I'm not so sure it's that you're trying to provide me with proof as it is that I'm trying to figure out what makes you believe the things you believe. You say that you study your faith, but when I hear that, it sounds like someone saying, "of course I believe in Santa Claus - I've done extensive studies of The Santa Clause movies." It just sounds backward to me. I don't know how you get from point A to point B. So I'm not accusing you of trying to change my mind, but I'll admit that I am trying to get you to think differently about your beliefs, and perhaps that's not fair of me.
DeleteHonestly, I do think there is a "right" conclusion to come to. It's the one that says "we don't have enough evidence to show that ANY god exists, much less the Christian one, so we should withhold judgement on the issue until we can find some sort of evidence that isn't just faith (faith being a belief in something you have no actual evidence for)." I know that I'm not supposed to say that. I know that's the incorrect thing for even an atheist to say, but I'm trying to be totally honest here. I also think it's ludicrous to believe in ghosts when there is zero evidence for such a thing beyond "I just know I saw something." I can't understand wanting to believe something that you can't demonstrate to be true.
Have you heard of the "outsider test for faith?" Here is a good article on it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/05/the-outsider-test-for-faith-and-how-to-take-it/
It probably gets across what I'm trying to say better than I currently am.
When you say we don’t have enough evidence, you are assuming that what you require for evidence is the same requirement for everybody. Because if we leave out religions and talk strictly about evidence of creation then the universe itself provides evidence of a Creator. The Big Bang Theory puts the universe at 13.7 billion years old, which means it had a beginning. Before it had a beginning, there was no physical time. Without physical time, you can’t have physical reality. Without physical reality you have nothing, which is incapable of doing anything because it is nothing. Something transcendent of physical reality had to move the universe from nothing to something. Does this seem reasonable to you?
ReplyDeleteI've heard the whole "first cause" argument many times, and have 2 thoughts on it:
Delete(1) I don't care that much, because honestly the topic hurts my brain a little. I don't know if there was "something" that "created" the universe. I do know that Lawrence Krauss, someone who understands it much better than I do, just wrote a whole book on it called "A Universe From Nothing," which I probably won't read, because again, I don't care that much.
(2) Even if you COULD prove that there was a "creator," how do you get from there to the Catholic Mass? Doesn't it make as much sense to go from there to the Evangelical snake-handlers or to Islam or Buddhism? What makes Catholicism so much more likely? Just the mere idea of having a creator for the universe does nothing to prove that all the stories that came after were/are true.
I think that if there is a god somehow participating in what happens in the world, then there should be testable, scientific evidence for that. For example, if praying for sick people had some effect, we should be able to find that in a study on the subject, yet we haven't (that whole "science says prayer works" thing is a myth). The more science discovers, the less we need a god to explain what happens in the world. People used to think that lightening was Zeus throwing thunderbolts at them, because they didn't have the capacity to figure out what was actually causing it. With the scientific method, we now do have a way of figuring out how the world works, and from what science can tell, there is no mysterious force making things happen.
Atheists hear all of the time that we just have standards of evidence that are unrealistic, or just "different" from those of religious people, but I don't think that the truth should be subjective. The truth is just the truth. I think that religious people just set their standards of evidence too low, because they want so badly to believe that the thing they've held onto for most of their lives is true. It's a comforting thought: that there's something looking out for us, waiting to give us eternal bliss after we leave this often wretched planet. But comforting doesn't equal true. I want to believe what's true, not what makes me feel good. At least that's my goal. Like any other human, I don't always achieve it.
There are religious and non-religious physicists who accept first cause. There are other things that go along with it such as low entropy and anthropic coincidences that make it even more understandable, but the point I am making is that it is evidence that points to a designer.
ReplyDeleteTo go from Creator to Catholic Church isn’t that difficult if you look at the prophecies leading up to Christ himself and how he is fulfilled in them. The Catholic Church has been here since Christ founded it, that is a historical fact. There have also been numerous documented miracles throughout the centuries that can’t be ignored.
A couple big stumbling blocks for Atheists that stand out to me are an incorrect definition of God as well as a misguided understanding of scripture. Also, putting people in a room and asking them to pray and expecting results that can be measured scientifically ignores the Will of God and once again, it is an incorrect understanding of who God is.
I also believe that I, as well as other believers, do use our inquiring minds as you stated, to look at evidence outside of religion itself to see how it compares to what we understand about God and our faith. I myself haven’t found anything yet that has shaken my faith, and if I do, I am never afraid to look at it. It only helps to further affirm what I believe. But I agree, not everyone bothers to learn anything past what they learned up to the point of their confirmation.
As far as being afraid to die and using religion as a comfort, you could say the same thing about the idea of not having to be held accountable for sin. I say count your blessings, and enjoy every day that you have. I think that is something we could all do a better job at.
"An incorrect definition of God as well as a misguided understanding of scripture."
ReplyDeleteSo what is the "correct" definition of God?
And if the Bible is the "word of God," why is it open to so much interpretation? Shouldn't it be easy for even the most uneducated person to understand?
Let me start again by saying I am just an ordinary Catholic. I am explaining this to the best of my ability with what I know and understand. If I am saying anything in error, the Church is the final authority for this teaching.
ReplyDeleteGod, who created the universe and is outside of time and space is the one true God. He cannot be a god among gods, by definition. He is infinitely perfect, the essence of being itself. So to compare him to any sort of god of mythology or a mere idol doesn’t even come close to who God is. He is radically different from anything we can comprehend, and we truly cannot find words to accurately describe him. If you want the best description I would suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catholic encyclopedia because I personally can’t do it justice let alone in a single paragraph.
The Church’s authority comes from Jesus himself. The Church was founded by Christ and was given the authority to protect the teachings from error, guided by the Holy Spirit. Interpretation of Holy Scripture has always been and still does fall under the authority of the Church. Today that responsible authority within the Church is known as the Magisterium. In other words, the Church has taken the revelation given through God through his prophets, inspired writing, as well as taught by Jesus himself to his disciples, and maintained the authority of protecting its’ interpretation for over 2000 years. It doesn’t change or declare new revelation, it is responsible to maintain and protect what has always been revealed from the beginning.
When people decide on their own to assume the responsibility of interpretation, this is where the confusion comes in. Biblical scholars, Bishops, Priests, and ordinary lay people can still delve into scripture, but the Church maintains the final say as to whether an interpretation does or does not conflict with what has already been defined as Catholic truth. Ultimately it is this authority that many people have a hard time accepting.
So you're going to take the word of an organization called the magisterium to tell you what is true or not, and you don't see a problem with that?
DeleteDo you think that your God is the same one that Muslims refer to as "Allah?" And if so, how are they getting their interpretation of God's will so horribly wrong? Same goes for the Jews. And the Protestant for that matter. If there is One True God, how are His people bungling his messages so badly? You'd think there'd be an easier way, especially if He's all powerful.
Yes, I do trust the Magisterium with safeguarding Catholic teaching on Divine Revelation.
ReplyDeleteAs to your questions concerning interpretation and worship of the same God. Saint Pope John Paul II wrote a wonderful book titled Crossing the Threshold of Hope where he offers some insight on this. Pope Benedict also talked about some differences in belief in the first of his three books on Jesus of Nazareth. Another great book I recommend was written by Jacob Neusner titled a Rabbi talks with Jesus. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains our relationship with God very well.
I realize you are most likely asking these questions more for my benefit so that I may look at my own faith closer, nothing wrong with that. By the way, I have looked at the links you provided as well, and I appreciate it. I would like to add one more thing and I hope you have a sense of humor. God doesn’t believe in Atheists. :-)
Yes, I have a sense of humor, and I'm pretty difficult to offend, so no worries there. :-)
DeleteYour answer just seems to back up my point though. Why would I need to do a bunch of extra reading to understand the "word of God?" Shouldn't it be simple and straightforward, so that anyone can understand it? I mean, I'm reasonable intelligent, but what happens to the people with lesser comprehension skills? How are they supposed to make sense of it if I can't? (And yes, I realize that sounds arrogant, but I'm just trying to prove a point.)
If we're not meant to understand the word of God, but rather to take the word of a group of people who claim to have divine revelation, then why don't we all follow Joseph Smith and become Mormons? Why should I trust a bunch of dudes who tell me they "just know" what God REALLY means?
"Reasonably." I meant reasonably, not reasonable. I posted before I could proofread. Which is the only "sin" I acknowledge.
DeleteWe have to start somewhere! Sorry this response it so long. And I do see what you are saying, it is harder for some than others, count me in. That is precisely why we need the Church, the teaching authority. Holy Scripture wasn’t intended to be handed out for us to peruse individually and draw our own conclusions, it requires guidance. Just like we trust colleges and universities as teaching authorities. The major difference is that this is Divine Revelation and that is why Jesus entrusted this authority to his Church.
ReplyDeleteThis authority is the major point of difference between Catholics and many non-Catholics. I hope I have my history correct but in short, the Canon of Scripture was assembled by the Church in the mid third century to the beginning of the fourth century after much debate by the Magisterium of that time. The Magisterium, being the teaching body, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. The books were already being used in the liturgy and for teaching, they just needed them to be declared as inspired writing and defined as the official Canon to maintain consistent teaching and eliminate possible confusion later on.
So why isn’t easy to understand? In reality, the message is easy to understand when communicated well. The Bible tells the story of Salvation History. It is the promise made by God to his people since the time of Adam and Eve. The promise he has continually kept, even when his people have rebelled, which we always do. His promise of Salvation which has ultimately been fulfilled in Jesus Christ his Son. The big difference between us today and those of the past is we have the benefit of hindsight.
Since the Promise has been fulfilled there will be no NEW Revelation. The Magisterium is responsible to protect, from error, what has been handed down through oral tradition and the written word. This is necessary because there have been and are those who add, or subtract from it to make it fit what they propose as truth. The story is easy to understand, but we need an authority to teach us how the stories are intertwined to tell the complete story.
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how to respond, except to say that if you took everything you just said and replaced "Catholicism" with "Islam," then you'd probably have some idea of what I'm thinking right now.
DeleteThere are so many problems with relying on the word of an authoritative body of people who claim to understand the intent of God that I don't even know where to begin.
Ultimately though, none of this matters because you have to first convince me that there is actually a supernatural being that interferes in our daily lives before I can even begin to look at everything else.
Not true because you would have to leave out all of what I said that is unique to Catholicism and then you would have very little left since they are so different.
ReplyDeleteI have to say though it sounds funny to hear you call interference what I refer to as guidance, but I get it, and I understand much better where you are coming from. I would like to say in parting that I enjoyed sharing with you, it was insightful.
And last of all, I know that you need to see proof of God before you are willing to accept him, but let me at least leave you with one line from Psalm 95, “If today you hear God’s voice, harden not your heart.”