Greg Craven, who is the Vice-Chancellor of Australian Catholic University (ACU), wrote a serious, yet funny, article. The article comes from my favorite Australian newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald. In the article, A plague of Atheists has Descended and Catholics are the Target, Greg Craven explains the rise of a new group of atheists that would rather engage in polemics and attacks on the Catholic faith than engage in serious dialogue. These attacks are so vitriol that they descend beyond reason and become humorous to read, but they aren’t intentional.
It was written concerning the state of Catholics in Australia having to deal with such malcontents, but it is apropos for Catholics here in America, as well as in western Europe.
Here is the entire article (Warning: Some profane language and Australianisms):
Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.
FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.
Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer’s blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.
No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.
Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.
Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?
The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.
The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers – and perhaps especially Catholics – do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.
Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.
It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None – no matter what they do, they just can’t see the light.
The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.
In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.
Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.
At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.
Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
_._
To read the original article by Greg Craven at The Sydney Morning Herald click here.
For the latest edition of The Sydney Morning Herald click here.
To learn more about Australian Catholic University click here.
Note: The picture at the top of this article is not of Greg Craven. Take a guess.
He’s very funny–and spot on to boot. I’m guessing Hitch for the photog–not sure as there’s some distortion. But gawsh, you’d think a devotee of science would trouble himself to support his local dentist more often!
Apparently atheists don’t believe in flossing, either.
CMinor,
Good guess.
It is Christopher Hitchens.
I have to say I actually like listening to Mr. Hitchens, though I don’t agree with him on his thoughts on faith at all. He seems to be the more civil of the “new atheists”. Unlike Richard Dawkins who goes out of his way to insult anyone showing a hint of faith without being provoked.
Ah yes.
The last acceptable prejudice is alive and well Down Under.
On our NZ Catholic blog entitled http://www.beingfrank.co.nz we have a couple of resident atheists who comment and criticise the catholics constantly.
Have to give them a good serve on occasions to quieten them down. 😉
Whatever happened to the old-school atheists who, quite ironically, were the ones responsible for such great religious films like The Song of Bernadette, Ben Hur and (I believe) even the much celebrated Man for All Seasons?
“Atheists” must attack the Church because [to quote Newman] it is the Ark of Salvation; the only true Church. Give them credit that they realize that. They know their enemy.
Gabriel:
If you truly believe that atheists attack the Church because it is the Ark of Salvation, the only true Church; then why do you suppose Protestants attack it?
Because they disagree with the atheists on that point?
One wishes the chancellors of Catholic universities in the USA were as well-spoken and strong in their defense of the Faith. Indeed, one wishes the chancellors of Catholic universities in the USA were Catholic.
[…] bigotry in the form of Christophobia. More commonly known as anti-Christian or more specifically anti-Catholicism in the case of this […]
e. writes Wednesday, November 4, 2009 A.D.
“Gabriel:
“If you truly believe that atheists attack the Church because it is the Ark of Salvation, the only true Church; then why do you suppose Protestants attack it?”.
Same reason. Who am I to disagree with Newman? He knew the problem from the inside out.
This article is bullsh*t. It is just a belligerent rant against “certain” atheists who have said “certain” things about the Catholic Church. First of all, using unruly behavior to go against unruly behavior is self defeating. You only proved that you could be just as stupid as the opposition. Second of all, who are these “certain” atheists? How exactly did they attack the Catholic Church? What did they say? Why not address the specific issue you have with the specific person you disagree with instead of generalizing & displaying elementary school-styled bigotry? Greg Craven is pathetic.
Jack,
You just proved the point of the article with your diatribe.
What a load of nonsense. I like how you start off your biased and untrue article with a picture meant to invoke a negative response correlated with atheism- that’s a nice psychological tactic. Then you go and make irrational claims like Catholics have an advantage that they at least believe in something. I am an atheist and I believe in all kinds of things- I simply don’t believe in things that there is no proof of, like life after death, because death isn’t exactly what we all wish for. I am an adult and am more conserned with truth than fantasy, and you are somehow saying you have the advantage of believing in something regardless of whether or not it is true. So in your article you essentially brag about random belief as opposed to being proud of being a rational thinker that seeks truth over wishful thinking. I’m also sorry that you had to make it a point to say you don’t like atheists, but whether or not you like the truth, it doesn’t change what is actually truth. I became an atheist because I am an intelligent rational thinker that spend a large amount of years studying religion and the human mind- I can tell the difference between reality and superstition. I did NOT become an atheist to increase my popularity at parties. To me, finding what is real is more important than making superstitious people like me better. Truth is not about being a hit at parties- it’s about being an adult and accepting what there is evidence for whether or not we like them.
What you said about an atheist’s interest in religion is also very misguided and an outright lie. Just because religions are games of make believe doesn’t mean I don’t know A TON about them, and I have very educated opinions on them. Have you ever studied religions in depth (not just Christian ones), read things like Joseph Campbell, questioned the claims people make about what they believe in? People are going around using fantasy to interact with the world, and thus they should be publically criticized for it. People like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine would do it, and people like me do it as well. I study cults and media based brainwashing as well, and I have lots to say on those subjects too. Your argument simply had no sense behind it.
Now everything you said was very ridiculous, but I at least gave you the respect of going through your rant and addressing some of the claims specifically. I have nothing to hide and showed what was wrong with your claims in a rational manner- something you failed to do about atheists.
I hope the propaganda you are spreading is ripped to shreds at the University though. I’m going to guess that the overwhelming majority of college educated people will easily see through the lies and logical fallacies.
I will continue to study religion, cults, propaganda, public relations, marketing, and other forms of psychological manipulation, and promise to help discredit propaganda articles like the one you just wrote here in the future. Please continue to spread it though because articles such as this one helps the educated public realize just how irrational your claims are. I have no hate for you whatsoever even though you write nothing but blatant lies and misconceptions. Have a great New Year’s weekend!
Steve, you write “Have you ever studied religions in depth (not just Christian ones), read things like Joseph Campbell, questioned the claims people make about what they believe in?”
What if the answer is yes?
Well at least that’s a start- I just think 99% of the time it’s not going to be so. This article was so over-the-top ridiculous that I can’t imagine it came from a person who is actually educated about religion.
It’s possible that they’re so brainwashed that cognitive dissonance blinds them completely to reality, but most educated people will not be able to type out so many logical fallacies like this article writer did without either feeling like a really bad person who knows they are lying deep down inside.
Even if there was a god (and I’m fully convinced that there is no reason to believe in one, and am also convinced that there is MUCH reason to believe that religions are all untrue fantasies built to help mankind cope with his psychological forces), the arguments the article writer made here would STILL be absolutely ridiculous, and not something a well educated person would be able to pull off (unless they were a con artist lying for a purpose).
I’m gonna bet the article writer knows very little about religion though because that’s the highest probability. It’s possible I’m wrong, but just not very likely.
And I do want to add that it’s a HUGE shame that this kind of propaganda is coming from a person with a position at a University where education should be more valued then pushing lies down people’s throats. I hope for the students at that specific Catholic University that this type of brainwasher is not the norm.
I myself went to Catholic school in gradeschool and highschool and got a great education. If I wrote an article such as the topic creator did for one of my classes, I would have been given an F. Luckily not all religious schools employ propagandists.
“I hope the propaganda you are spreading is ripped to shreds at the University though. I’m going to guess that the overwhelming majority of college educated people will easily see through the lies and logical fallacies.”
::begins laughing hysterically::
Are you serious?
Universities in the Western world have nothing to do with educating people about logical fallacies. They are about indoctrinating people in the false religions of secular humanism and political correctness with methods that become more fascistic every year.
Don’t believe me? Check out Freedom for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
Universities are no longer modernist, my friend. They are post-modernist. Modernists value reason and logic (sometimes to the point of religiosity, which is silly). Post-modernists do not believe in objective truth and view reason and logic as Western paradigms.
I’m sorry that you must have a poor experience with education, but I have not had the same problem. I was taught about logic and objective reality in schools. Science itself requires understanding of objective reality and that is exactly what the scientific method tests for unlike religion, which just makes up answers without any evidence. Philosophy is not the point of an education though- and I would agree that many people waste their minds away in philosophy classes instead of seeking what is real.
Now of course there is no objective truth in things like morality and such (though of course our human nature will make some morals seem almost universal based on our agreed upon desires), but in cases of whether or not there is an afterlife, whether or not people leave their bodies during meditation or prayer or sleep, whether religions brainwash members as opposed to teaching them truth, how molecules interact with eachother, well then there is most definitely an objective truth.
The fact that we are having this communication on an instrument built upon what we have learned about the objective reality through the scientific method is proof that the objective truth is real. I have never taken a class in college or even high school that would not agree.
Maybe many universities in America are failures though, because there are still so many irrational people like the writer of this article out there, but I don’t think that universities are pumping out people that ridiculous at a high rate.
Steve,
How about this thought experiment.
Can you convince twelve of your friends to die for a lie?
Steve, ss regards your comment about propaganda, the Catholic Church invented it. It simply means propagation of the faith. Clearly, in your case, we failed. Please accept our apologies.
I hope your relationship with your father isn’t damaging your relationship with God. I know, you don’t beleive in a god so you can’t have a relationship with him or her, right?
The fact is that you do have a relationship with God because He made you and He gave you the brilliant, truth-seeking mind you have. He loves you and wants you to use reason and faith to come back to Him. All rationality must begin with an act of faith in something. You obviously beleive in truth and that is an excellent place to start.
Just remember that understanding is given to those who believe, not the other way around. It seems illogical, but that is simply a symptom of the lie that we are all born into. You can get out, if you really want to.
Actually I shouldn’t blame America for the failure in this specific religious propaganda article, as it came out of Australia. Also I’ve never heard any of my teachers in catholic school make such huge logical fallacies, so I can’t even say all religious schools in America breed stupidity. Some of them are actually quite good. I think part of that is because I’m from a major city and not the south or something. I think religious people in major cities are less likely to be strongly brainwashed, and usually just use religion to cope instead of trying to use it as a total guideline for their lives, but that’s just my guess.
Hold on Steve. I was being charitable and you go and post bigotry, “. . .because I’m from a major city and not the south or something.”
Those of us who live in the South find your bigotry displeasing, yet, as Christians, we still love you. We might have to give you a whoopin’ if you come down here though. For your own good, you understand.
Hey Steve, do you think it is possible that you are blind to Christ because you come from a major (read liberal secular progressive) city. Geography doesn’t make one more or less intelligent, perhaps more or less arrogant though.
It is a shame that you seek truth in a world that is confined by your limited senses and has no reason for being. it must be extremely boring and fruitless. Sad.
“Steve, ss regards your comment about propaganda, the Catholic Church invented it. It simply means propagation of the faith. Clearly, in your case, we failed. Please accept our apologies.”
Propaganda means spreading lies by psychological manipulation. I agree that the Catholic church does this- that’s actually part of the reason it spread so well. But they certainly didn’t invent it. I’m not going to blame the Catholic Church for inventing lying.
“I hope your relationship with your father isn’t damaging your relationship with God. I know, you don’t beleive in a god so you can’t have a relationship with him or her, right? ”
Nope, my relationship with my dad has nothing to do with whether or not a conscious creator of the universe exists. Though you make a good point- much of the myth of gods comes from the human experience of their fathers- it’s just projected onto the universe through anthromorphization.
“The fact is that you do have a relationship with God because He made you and He gave you the brilliant, truth-seeking mind you have. He loves you and wants you to use reason and faith to come back to Him. All rationality must begin with an act of faith in something. You obviously beleive in truth and that is an excellent place to start.”
Well thanks for agreeing that truth seeking is a positive thing- I don’t agree that I can have a relationship with a being that doesn’t exist though, and I think you’re trying to avoid having to prove that he does by simply saying I have a relationship with him whether I believe in him or not.
”
Just remember that understanding is given to those who believe, not the other way around. It seems illogical, but that is simply a symptom of the lie that we are all born into. You can get out, if you really want to.
”
Well no, it seems exactly like it is- what you just said is an attribute of a cult. Understanding is given to those who believe means that something will seem to be true if you are brainwashed to believe it-
I agree. Scientologists, Mormons, Christian Science cult members would all say exactly what you are saying to me, except they also think the same about you!
I understand that position because it means that you must be brainwashed to believe in something that is a lie.
It would be nice if a god existed, but I won’t brainwash myself into believing in a lie just because it sounds nice, and because brainwashing makes things feel true even when they are not.
Thanks for not being like the writer of this article- you sound like a good person. Greg Craven sounds like an evil person, and I can assure you that you do not share his negative qualities.
While I think you are deluding yourself with religion, I at least think that you are not harming other people with your beliefs, and I also think that you will probably live a very good life and have lots of friends and do a lot of good in the world, and I can’t fault you for any of that. If your beliefs make you happy, so be it.
No it’s not possible that the city I live in raised me to be blind to any god. I have studied religion in great depth, and have studyied how religion forms, the psychological forces that create religious myths, the psychological factors behind belief and spiritual experiences, etc. I have put more time into studying religion and the human mind than anybody I know.
Now I guess I’ll appologize for the crack against the south. I don’t necessarily think I was wrong, but maybe was overly insensitive on that one. You’re a nice person so I don’t want to talk trash to you. I’m sorry.
“It is a shame that you seek truth in a world that is confined by your limited senses and has no reason for being. it must be extremely boring and fruitless. Sad.”
Boring and fruitless? No way. I have taken multiple road trips all across America, seen mountains, met people from all over the world, stayed at hostels, drank in countless bars, seen all kinds of great bands play, hung out with friends of mine at shows they’ve had at famous venues, have lots of friends, have had multiple attractive girlfriends, have been in love, have had best friends for many years, still keep in touch with over 100 people from my high school days, etc etc etc.
Life is beautiful. It is not all bad. I do see it as tragic that it is temporary, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy the life that I have while I have it. I’d love there to be an afterlife- I’d especially like something like “what dreams may come”. But those are my dreams, and I have accepted reality instead of clung to only them.
In my life I vow to meet many people, see many places, take chances, talk to the girl when my heart drops a beat, listen to my friends cry all night about their problems so I can be there for them, embrace music and art…
I have many goals and many dreams, and I while I will be realistic about them, I will also shoot for the stars and be happy while I can be. Whether or not there is reason doesn’t matter- I give my life my own reason and have had many fun and happy experiences along with the sad ones.
AK,
Never assume that an atheist doesn’t like their life.
Not all of them are perceptive enough to have an existential crisis 🙂
If you don’t think about anything beyond pleasure and pain, being an atheist is quite fun and quite liberating. Just ask the Marquis de Sade.
“In my life I vow to meet many people, see many places, take chances, talk to the girl when my heart drops a beat, listen to my friends cry all night about their problems so I can be there for them, embrace music and art…”
Now you sound like the lyrics to a cheesy pop music song.
“I have studied religion in great depth”
Until you study it from the inside, your knowledge is superficial. All the things you list are what a bunch of people who already agree amongst themselves tell one another to reinforce their beliefs – in the same sort of closed-circuit that small religious cults get trapped in as well.
You seem like a nice young person who means well. I too was an atheist, a militant atheist, and a communist. But I never swallowed the post-modern pill and became a relativist. I was always firmly modernist in my thinking. But when you extend that into philosophy, you can only end up, not only at religion in general, but specifically in the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
By “modernist” I just mean, believes in objective truth. Not the Modernism denounced by Pius X.
“I have studied religion in great depth”
Have you read the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas? If you haven’t, you haven’t studied religion in great depth. Here is a sample:
“Article 3. Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.”
The Summa can be read on line at the link below. Read it and think about it and get back to us.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
I think everyone that comes to realize there is no meaning or no afterlife has the occasional existential crisis- I’ve had plenty. But do you think I sit around crying that I’m going to die all day? Nope. There is much to see and enjoy out there! Carpe diem! Seize the day!
Reminds me of a quote from Dead Poet’s Society:
“” They believe they’re destined for great things, just like many of you, their eyes are full of hope, just like you. Did they wait until it was too late to make from their lives even one iota of what they were capable? Because, you see gentlemen, these boys are now fertilizing daffodils. But if you listen real close, you can hear them whisper their legacy to you. Go on, lean in. Listen, you hear it? – – Carpe – – hear it? – – Carpe, carpe diem, seize the day boys, make your lives extraordinary!”
And of course I have studied religion from the inside- I was raised Catholic. I have also joined other Christian sects on my path to truth. But that’s absolutely a ridiculous way to live life- thinking that you have to be a cult member to know truth. That’s not how we discover reality- it’s how we get brainwashed.
I’m conserned with truth, so you don’t have to give me lessons on being a cult member, or use cult member tactics like saying “only ingroup members can understand our knowledge.” Sorry, one of my degrees was psychology, and I have also taken many sociology classes. I am not mystified by ingroup outgroup dynamics of cults. Plus I don’t think you realize how much time I’ve put into debating religion with scientologists and mormons online! Since at least I was a teenager in the early and mid 90s. You are not saying anything any cult member hasn’t been saying to me for years. Cults are so fun to study for me I even visited Clearwater Florida just so I could visit Scientologists in their natural habitat, and even gone to Salt Lake City, and entire city built around fantasy. I love that kind of stuff. One day I will visit the Vatican too I’m sure.
I am not trying to be mean saying you are using cult tactics either- just pointing out the objective truth behind what you were saying. I bet you could spot the logical fallacies in what you are saying if you were listening to a Jehova’s Whitness or a Muslim or a Scientologist or Mormon speak.
In the same way you can see through their fantasies, I can see through all versions of Christianity.
“Have you read the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas? If you haven’t, you haven’t studied religion in great depth. Here is a sample:
Yep, I have read writings of Aquinas along with plenty of famous Christian appologists. I consider him to be a bad appologist (not that I’ve ever found a good one), because he specifically tries to define things into existence.
Defining things into existence is not proof of the existence of the thing you are defining- it is simply proof that you can play word games.
Aquanas is famous for starting with the premise of “god exists” and then twisting reality around to try and make it seem to go along with his assumption. Problem is he never was seeking truth, but was actually trying to find ways to wordily sound like his beliefs were correct without needing actual evidence.
From your wording of your reply Steve I am sure you have not read the entire Summa. That is my challenge to you. Read it and think about it. If you are going to claim you have studied religion in depth, you really need to do so.
Like I have said, he is famous for trying to define things into existence, like he was doing in your example.
people use aquanas all the time discussing religion, and he’s easily refuted, since all he is doing is trying to define something into existence and not offer proof. That is not how you find objective reality. It’s how you waste time talking to yourself and patting yourself on the back for feeling like you know what you’re talking about, when really you have no evidence whatsoever that what you are saying is true.
Yes, you studied psychology at the university, that makes you an expert on people! Do you realize how you sound? No one cares about your credentials. Either your argument is valid or invalid, true or false.
The Catholic Church is not a “cult.” I know because I belonged to a political cult – and those aren’t that different than religious cults. The Catholic Church built universities and observatories. Contrary to the stupid lies promulgated by communist liars, the Church has been history’s greatest patron of science and the arts, of the illumination of man’s consciousness and spirit. Cults do not do these things.
You were “raised Catholic.” So was I, Steve. The modern Church has many flaws. The Catholicism I speak of is the 2000 year old Tradition, the Catholicism of Christ, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the medieval Doctors, and so on.
It sounds to me that your definition of “cult tactics” is so broad that it can be used to cover an argument for anything. What cult argument have I used?
As for your Carpe Deim mentality, nothing prevents Catholics from living it as well. But we give thanks to the one who made it possible. In a universe that is 96% dark matter and dark energy that we cannot see or discern any purpose for, with only 4% comprising the matter that we take for granted, it is impossible for me to carelessly write off the question of a creator.
If there is no God, there is no justice. And if there is no justice, there is no morality. And yet, we are as sure of the existence of justice and morality as we are of certain mathematical proofs and logical propositions. Inherent in the universe is order, is a comprehensible language that random chaos could never erect. This is why scientists who actually study it, such as physicists, end up believing in some kind of God – and if they spent a little time on philosophy they would recognize that it is the God presented by Church Tradition that they have found.
What biologists, or for that matter, psychologists think is really of secondary importance. They work with matter, with DNA or brain chemistry, and become subsumed in materialism as a result. They don’t see the forest for the trees, they believe materialism is a credible explanation for what they observe. Step beyond working with mere matter, into the quantum field, into neuroscience, into quantum physics, where everything we take for granted about matter and the laws it obeys breaks down, and the universe suddenly becomes a great deal more complex.
The challenge has been issued Steve. It is up to you now, unless you are afraid that your cherished atheism cannot withstand a meeting of the minds with the Dumb Ox.
You can be upset that you are a cult member and I am correctly labeling you as such all you want, but you are using cult member tactics to debate me, so I will simply point out what you are doing. Saying that you have to see the truth from the inside to know about it is a very easy to spot cult member tactic.
Most cults use that mind trick. It’s just incredibly easy to spot and discredit.
And you being upset that there is no ultimate justice doesn’t mean that there is ultimate justice. Sorry, we can’t always get what we want. The universe doesn’t care that we exist. People and other animals suffer and die every day by uncarring natural forces. We will die too whether we want to or not, and whether or not people who hurt you are punished will mean nothing in the end.
You’re just using really weak arguments to claim that there is a god and still offer no evidence of one. You just tell me that you want to believe in a god. I’m sure you do. That doesn’t mean that there is one- and it certainly doesn’t mean your specific god is more real than any of the thousands of others humans have invented to try and cope with life.
“The challenge has been issued Steve. It is up to you now, unless you are afraid that your cherished atheism cannot withstand a meeting of the minds with the Dumb Ox.”
What challenge? I’ve already read aquainas and even told you why his arguments don’t work. I don’t see what there is left for me to do.
“As for your Carpe Deim mentality, nothing prevents Catholics from living it as well. But we give thanks to the one who made it possible. In a universe that is 96% dark matter and dark energy that we cannot see or discern any purpose for, with only 4% comprising the matter that we take for granted, it is impossible for me to carelessly write off the question of a creator. ”
But here in lies your problem- you realize that we do not know everything- that is true- but then you make the HUGE logical fallacy by assuming that because we don’t know it all there is a god, and even moreso, your specific god.
If you instead stopped at the part where you admit we don’t have all the answers on what the universe is or what its true origins were, then you would be on the right path to truth over fantasy.
You’re using the god of the gaps argument- filling in what we don’t know with a magical answer. Just like people used to think Thor was throwing lightning or causing thunder. You are doing the exact same thing and I bet even you consider Thor to be a silly explanation.
Steve, the challenge is to read the entire Summa and think about it. Just judging from your inability to spell the name Aquinas correctly, and from your comments about him, you obviously have read very little that he has written. Read him Steve, every word. If you are going to be an effective atheist you need to become familiar with the works of one of the most effective advocates for the other side. The gauntlet is down Steve. Pick it up or walk away.
I have no idea how you think I don’t know those arguments. I have already told you that I have read his works and the works of many other famous appologists.
His silly first cause argument is all over the internet for years, and is instantly destroyed by its own logic, as we could not rationally explain how a god could be a causeless first cause, without defining a god being into existence without evidence.d
Yes my spelling sucks, and I have noticed many spelling mistakes, but I am doing the important thing which is giving you the reasoning why his logic fails- far more important than spelling every word correctly.
I see you are walking away Steve. Too bad. You are missing a chance to truly try to understand what was written by one of the greatest intellects produced by mankind. The Summa is waiting Steve, if you ever do feel intellectually up to the challenge.
Steve,
I don’t know how to convey to you that I couldn’t care less that you think I am a “cult member.” I guess in order to validate your own position, you will necessarily assume that people are “upset” with you (when you have no way of knowing that through text). I usually make my emotions known to people – if I want to convey anger, I will use appropriate language and punctuation.
In this case I am simply hearing rather, to use your word, “weak arguments” that we are cult members. It’s not even an argument, in fact, but a repeated assertion.
“Saying that you have to see the truth from the inside to know about it is a very easy to spot cult member tactic.”
Just because something is true of cults does not mean that it is exclusive to cults. I would say the same thing about any organization or discipline. That doesn’t mean you have to JOIN it – which is what I think a cult member would insist on. I don’t say you have to be a Catholic to understand Catholicism, but you do need to consult authentically Catholic sources.
If that wasn’t clear before, I hope it is now. A cult would say knowledge of the cult’s truths requires initiation and progression through the various ranks. As a Catholic I say knowledge of the Church’s truths are readily accessible to all – but that they must be obtained from the Church, and not from people who hate it. That is a simple matter of fairness and intellectual honesty. Is it clear now?
“And you being upset that there is no ultimate justice doesn’t mean that there is ultimate justice.”
I never claimed that my dismay made it so. Let me put it differently; I believe that the sensation of hunger is a reasonable proof for the existence of food, even if I never see food. I believe that the existence of fear is a reasonable proof for the existence of predators, even if I am never stalked by one. And I believe that man’s overwhelming, universal desire for justice and morality, as evidence by every culture that has ever existed, is reasonable proof for a law-giver.
I also realize that you have a desperate desire to make it all about me. If it is all about me and my wants and fears, and not man’s as such, you can play the psychological reduction game. But I am not simply arguing on my own behalf.
What, in your view, is a strong argument for God?
“but then you make the HUGE logical fallacy by assuming that because we don’t know it all there is a god, and even moreso, your specific god.”
No, you’re wrong. Our lack of knowledge about 96% of the universe is one of several things that I believe makes belief in God REASONABLE.
I DO NOT – I repeat – I DO NOT say that it PROVES the existence of God.
There is a difference between proving something, and establishing the reasonableness of a belief. Belief in God would be unreasonable if it conflicted with what we absolutely do know about the universe – it doesn’t. Belief in God is reasonable if it doesn’t contradict what we know, if it is a good or even likely explanation for what we see in the universe – it is.
But I DO NOT claim that ANYTHING is PROVEN. Please understand that.
Steve,
As a former athiest/agnostic I can tell you that studying religion is not the same thing as being a beleiver. I know more about religion than most people who believe – not an arrogant commnent, just a fact. Knowledge of facts is insufficient and that is all I had.
My saving grace was that I was very interested in seeking truth and not being a hypocrite. I suspect that is the same for you. I would not become a beleiver because I felt that I would be lying and that was unacceptable. Why? I mean how odd is that?
Why seek truth? Why be honest? There may not be a material advantage to such things. So why was I compelled to seek truth and be honest? It is written in our hearts by He who made us. You know this, we all do. Even back then I knew it, I just hated it. I hated it because it diminished me. It made me contingent and forced obligations on me and all I wanted to be was free! But that is a lie. I wasn’t free. I am now.
What I have learned and what you have to discover is that faith must preceed reason. A rational mind cannot comprehend truth, it can only glimpse truth. You have faith – you believe that you can determine the truth and you believe that you can do it without God. The problem with that faith is that it is totally limited to the material universe. Matter is important and all of it was poured into the universe in the beginning – when God said, “BANG!”. How can you, a creature of the bang, ever know what caused the bang?
There is only one way. The cause of the Big Bang must be revealed to you by the cause itself. You can’t reach out of the system to Him, so He will reach into the system to you. There is one catch though – you have to have faith in Him before wisdom or understanding is given. You can’t fake it. What are you afraid of? Be honest.
Well first off I was defining cult tactics as you were using as anybody else in the social science feilds would do so. I know cult has a negative connotation, but I am not beating around the bush there. I’m not going to agree with your position that the arguments you used could be used by non cult members.
“I never claimed that my dismay made it so. Let me put it differently; I believe that the sensation of hunger is a reasonable proof for the existence of food, even if I never see food. I believe that the existence of fear is a reasonable proof for the existence of predators, even if I am never stalked by one. And I believe that man’s overwhelming, universal desire for justice and morality, as evidence by every culture that has ever existed, is reasonable proof for a law-giver. ”
Ok, so now you’re using CSLewis’s argument. There is absolutely no proof in the universe that everything that is hoped for exists. That makes no sense whatsoever. It’s a pretty poor argument, and makes no distinction between all the hoped for things of all religions and cults.
” also realize that you have a desperate desire to make it all about me. If it is all about me and my wants and fears, and not man’s as such, you can play the psychological reduction game. But I am not simply arguing on my own behalf. ”
religion is probably just a manifestation of our wants and fears- I’m not making it all about you- I’m making it all about humans in general.
“What, in your view, is a strong argument for God?”
I’ve yet to come across one.
But it would obviously have to be something that wouldn’t be only believable if you undergo the same mental processes any brainwashed person would have to undergo. Saying that you need faith and things of that nature are akin to saying you need to play make believe. If there was a god, knowing him shouldn’t require you to do the same things people who play make believe do.
I think faith in the christian religion is partial proof that there is no christian god, and that religion is only a coping mechanism. It seems silly to believe knowing a god would require the process of make believe, in which case you would never be able to prove your beliefs are true, but only FEEL that they are. Scientologists, Mormons, Chriastians- they all have faith they are correct, and to them, they all FEEL they are 100% right. But they still have no proof outside of feelings, and emotions are a clear path to lies and deception.
Steve,
Joe wrote, “But I DO NOT claim that ANYTHING is PROVEN. Please understand that.”
Pay very close attention to that comment. It is very, very important.
There can be NO proof for God. Not that He cannot provide definitive proof if He desired but it would be self-defeating and then he wouldn’t be God would He?
If God was a proven fact then there would be no need for belief. I do NOT beleive in things that I know are provable facts because they are provable.
If God were a quantifiable fact by human ability then we would have no Faith in Him, we would simply accept him as we do gravity or Jello. In other words we would be compelled to accept him and therefore we would not be freely choosing to love Him. He wants us to choose to love Him becuase He wants us to freely desire to be with Him. That is why He is veiled in mystery.
That doesn’t mean there are not proofs for the logic of believing in Him and I can tell you that I know He is real because I know Him. I have a personal relationship with Him and a communal relationship with Him and His Church. I can proove that I have this relationship because that is how I live my life. I can’t proove God becuase that would end the prologue to eternity and as much as Eternity with Him is my desire, I want to maximize my time here and now.
I know you want to maximize your time here and now too. The difference is that you do it for yourself and I try to do it for His Greater Glory.
Please understand that God loves you and wants you to be with Him. He wants to give you a true purpose for your life and all these gifts and more await you – but first you have to let go of your belief that you are an end unto yourself.
“No, you’re wrong. Our lack of knowledge about 96% of the universe is one of several things that I believe makes belief in God REASONABLE.
I DO NOT – I repeat – I DO NOT say that it PROVES the existence of God.
There is a difference between proving something, and establishing the reasonableness of a belief. Belief in God would be unreasonable if it conflicted with what we absolutely do know about the universe – it doesn’t. Belief in God is reasonable if it doesn’t contradict what we know, if it is a good or even likely explanation for what we see in the universe – it is.
But I DO NOT claim that ANYTHING is PROVEN. Please understand that.
”
OK, well I’m glad that you don’t think that argument proves there is a god. Many Christians do.
I agree that the fact that we don’t know everything leaves the doors open for all kinds of crazy possibilities. I can never prove there is no creator.
But until there is evidence of such a being, it is not reasonable to believe in one. Also, the fact that so much of spiritual experiences, religious passions and beliefs, religious mythology and setup, can be explained away by what we learned from psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc, we have much reason to believe that religion does not lead to truth.
Whether or not there is a creator god though we might never be able to know. That doesn’t mean assuming one exists is reasonable, just possible.
Let’s say there really is a god. If one existed, it would STILL not be reasonable to believe in it without evidence, and believing in one because of things that can be explained away as emotional feelings or coincidences or desires would still be irrational regardless.
“There can be NO proof for God. Not that He cannot provide definitive proof if He desired but it would be self-defeating and then he wouldn’t be God would He?
If God was a proven fact then there would be no need for belief. I do NOT beleive in things that I know are provable facts because they are provable.
If God were a quantifiable fact by human ability then we would have no Faith in Him, we would simply accept him as we do gravity or Jello. In other words we would be compelled to accept him and therefore we would not be freely choosing to love Him. He wants us to choose to love Him becuase He wants us to freely desire to be with Him. That is why He is veiled in mystery.”
Come on. Me and you both know that is a cop out.
The idea that this god wants you to believe in him by the process of make believe is ridiculous, and applies to all religions- even the ones you don’t believe in.
What you are saying here is pretty silly.
And by the way, I love my parents and have loved girlfriends and friends, and I know they exist. The idea that love is not possible if you don’t hide is completely silly.
It’s just a way to get around the fact that there is no god, and you have to pretend one exists, and you’re essentially trying to justify playing make believe by including it in your theology.
Things like that are good indicators that religion is not true.
Has it ever occurred to you, Steve, that the FEELING that all of these groups have may be valid, but that their knowledge may be different and imperfect?
To beat the horse you don’t like, every person in every culture feels hunger – but each culture might have different theory about how food works in the body prior to generalized scientific knowledge. This could be applied to dozens of other phenomenon.
You, like so many other atheists, make the mistake of assuming that agreement on some matters negates truth in all matters. Catholicism, precisely because it is not a cult, recognizes that there are universal truths that virtually all religions tap into. Man has a religious instinct, a longing and a desire for the transcendent, for God.
It is not a question of which religion is absolutely true, to the absolute exclusion of every tenant of every other faith. It is a question of which religion possesses the fullness of the truth. It isn’t a coincidence that the same civilization that discovered the fullness of logic also came to embrace Christianity as promulgated by the Catholic Church.
The thing that you dismiss, that everyone feels, is real. Deny it in yourself if you must, suppress it, beat it down.
What I find to be a “pretty poor argument” is your just dismissing of arguments as “pretty poor arguments” without explaining why. I’ve never even read C.S. Lewis, to be honest with you – it just makes sense. It is REASONABLE to believe that that which we universally desire, exists. I didn’t say that it proved anything. Understanding the distinction between reasonable faith and absolute certainty would be a big help for you, and many atheists I suspect.
Finally, we are not Vulcans, but human beings. When you say “emotions are a clear path to lies and deception”, this is absolutely false. Raw emotions untempered with logic can lead to lies – but our emotions are a part of our human nature. Furthermore, the desire for God is not an “emotion” like fear or anger, but a sensation, like hunger or thirst. We feel it in an emotional way, but it is not itself an emotion.
We are designed to seek out our creator, to know and to love him. We know him through studying the natural world and philosophy, and we love him through religion. This is simple.