I woke up today to find some of my favorite Catholics blogs were going to be going offline. Apparently one or more persistent atheist commenters were making objections that devastated the authors of these blogs.
Joe of the “Blind Faith and No Reason” blog posted:
I use to ask atheists how matter could come out of nothing bringing up “Ex nihilo”, out of nothing nothing comes. Unfortunately an atheist commenter asked me about my own belief in “Why do you believe your mythical being could exist then?” I was stunned by this question. Nobody in the 2,000 year history of the Church had never considered this objection. He then brought up other questions that also nobody in the 2,000 year philosophical history of the Church had ever considered. So glad my atheist commenter finally forced me to take the red pill and to wake up into reality.
I was saddened by this, but was shocked when the next blog I went to had this to say:
I thought my Catholic commenters and myself were making headway responding to an atheist commenter and then the commenter brought up the priestly abuse scandal. We were totally unprepared for this. How could the Church founded by Christ have sinners in it? I then realized my understanding of the magical sacraments was totally flawed. Surely if God existed once I became his fanboy he would rip out my free will allowing me only to do good. I totally see now that it is not the examples of the saints who lived the faith that I should be informed by but by the sinners who didn’t live the faith. Then he brought up other examples of past sins of the Church that must be totally true in every detail since he saw it on the History Channel.
Unbelievably when I next clicked on the “Scriptural Catholic” blog I found this post by Duey Rheims:
As a lay scriptural scholar I thought I knew scripture and my faith rather well. Having read scripture daily for many years, read commentaries, heard the word proclaimed at Mass I thought I had a good understanding. Then an atheist commenter started leaving objections and questions on my comment boxes. I am prepared for most objections, but was not prepared for his asking about “talking snakes and a man living three days inside of a fish”. Wow I had never considered that there were such odd things in the Bible and I must have insulated myself from reality by ignoring this. I use have a fairly nuanced view of scripture knowing that scripture is not like modern history and that there were various literary genres used to impart truth. For example when the Prophet Nathan told King David the story of the Ewe Lamb that was taken by the rich man even though the rich man had plenty of his own, Samuel was telling a story that imparted the truth of what King David was doing by taking Bathsheba in adultery. Then I remembered Balaam’s talking Donkey and now know that the only way to approach scripture is to be a fundamentalist in regard to scriptural interpretation. No nuance or study is required, just read it and what you think it means at first blush or through your own interpretive lens is the right one. All those scholars throughout the ages just totally missed was is obvious to the combo box atheist. He then told me God hated shellfish and I knew my faith was crushed.
OK, this was getting serious. Still I was not prepared for what I found at the “Midwife of Science” blog:
I use to write on the stillbirth of science in every civilization and culture and how the Christian philosophical atmosphere prepared for the growth of science. The late priest and physicist Stanley Jaki wrote extensively about this in his books on science history. “Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a nature with autonomous laws without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms.” I use to point out to atheist these facts and the thousands of Catholic scientists throughout the ages. There are of course famous examples such as the Friar Gregor Johann Mendel and Deacon (possibly priest) Nicolaus Copernicus. Or the priest/astronomer/physicist Georges Lemaître who came up with what came to be called the Big Bang Theory. I knew of this and countless examples from my own research and the Catholic Laboratory Podcast. This morning after my usual routine I checked my email and found a comment from an atheist “What about the Galileo affair?” Wow, how did I miss that and its significance? Obviously this one example where Galileo was prosecuted for breaking his word and teaching as fact something not proved with empirical evidence almost two centuries after his death. So what if Galileo was totally wrong for using as proof the tides? So what if he was treated even worse by the scientists of the time and he had rather an abrasive personality. Surely this one example which could have been handled better is proof that the Church hates science and just wish it could go away so we could go back to some dark dank ages kicking it up like the Amish. The fact that the Church had setup Cathedrals as solar observatories and that she still maintains astronomical observatories is just cover for her hatred of empirical science.
As the day progresses I see more an more of the devastation of the Catholic blogosphere as Catholic blogs go dark. Now as for myself you don’t have to worry. Like any solid Catholic I am totally immune to reasonable arguments by atheists. The Pope told me atheists are mistaken so I just depend on the argument by authority without messing my mind up with want pesky reason. If God wanted me to mess around with reason he wouldn’t have given me faith.
97 comments
“Duey Rheims” – oh my! I was having my evening cup of coffee – some warning would have been good! Thanks Jeff 🙂
The worst part is, the “ex nihilo” argument has been answered by Catholic theologians (i.e. God is omnipresent and outside of time, so yea). Atheists still have no answer for it because “nihilo ex nihilo”. So basically whenever the guy who wrote that blog had his faith broken, it was by question that could have been answered if he’d really known his stuff. Tragic is what it is.
No problem here – some serious tongue in cheek is all. I am familiar with this style of apologetics, this person just turned it around on Catholics. Short: I used to have it all together, until someone asked me a really hard question, and now I am in a muddle and my faith is shattered. We are going to have to use our faith and reason, study and prayer if we are going to come out the other side of this relatively simple poke at our faith. Really, this was a joke.
(((Like any solid Catholic I am totally immune to reasonable arguments by atheists. )))
Hey Jeff! That is why any day of the week, I would sooner have a truly con- ver-ted atheist as yourself in my corner.
Darn! When I started my 2nd blog, I never included a comment box!
I hear ya sinner vic! Gee Victor if you would have had a comment box, we might not be so lonesome today cause atheist would not have given up on you because we would have been their eternal chalenge. 🙁
Do not make me cry sinner vic cause I might just be tempted to start a third blog cause you know what they say, Comes in Threes! 🙂
Peace
I just started in the Catholic Blogosphere. No one is pushing me around or pushing me out.
>part is, the “ex nihilo” argument has been answered by Catholic theologians (i.e. God is omnipresent and outside of time, so yea). Atheists still have no answer for it because “nihilo ex nihilo”.
So. Your god doesn’t exist do that means it does?
How does this “outside of time” omnipotent being manipulate matter inside of time?
LOL! This was perfect! It’s fascinating and hilarious that every questioner always thinks they are the absolutely first one to come with whatever objection it is they have.
I reminded of this……
“Faith devoid of reason becomes blind superstition. Reason devoid of faith becomes self-absorption with a detachment from reality.”
George Weigel
>Reason devoid of faith becomes self-absorption with a detachment from reality.”
Yes, theism based on Bronze Age and Neolithic mythology mated with Roman and Egyptian paganism is quite attached to reality.
salvage, what do you consider as the guiding principles of your life and how did you settle on them?
Very funny! The part that made me lol was “must be totally true in every detail since he saw it on the History Channel”. A real hoot.
The Church needs better atheists. Surely, there’s, like, a warehouse or an Atheist WalMart or something where we can get some.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
>The Church needs better atheists.
You can’t have “better” atheists, it’s a binary state, either you believe that gods are real (theist) or you believe they are not (atheists), you there is no quality to measure.
irony, thy name is salvage.
Salvage, you’re wrong. Kai Neilsen is a good atheist. Honest, intelligent, and charitable to theist positions. Anthony Flew (before he became a theist) could outhink Dawkins and Hitchens in his sleep. And he’s still a better thinker than Dawkins even though he’s dead.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
Once again, there is no depth to atheism, it’s too simple a concept to have any.
There are no such things as gods, there’s nothing more to it.
I have no idea who Kai Neilsen is, Anthony Flew became a theist right around the time his mind started to go. Dawkins is a published scientist who has advanced pretty much every field he’s ever worked in. Personally I think he’s become a bit of a fevered ego but some people lack the grace to handle fame. Hitchens was an awful man, a drunk, a liar and an idiot. His writing was technically fine but if he had any great insights I missed them.
>And he’s still a better thinker than Dawkins even though he’s dead.
Let me guess, because you agreed with Hitchens on various political and cultural points he’s a “better thinker” than Dawkins?
Or tell me, what Hitchens has done to make you think this?
@salvage
To paraphrase and adapt response #12 of this thread to the world of geometry according to salvage…”it’s a binary state…either a triangle is planar and 2 dimensional” or “it’s a shark fin or slice of pizza”.
Fr. Neri, I agree with you, but I am not sure that in the world of salvage “good” is a clear concept. Given that for him the death penalty issue is resolved on the basis of how expensive it is, what do concepts like “honest, intelligent and charitable” mean to him? I wonder, and that is why I asked him for his guiding principles, but I am still waiting for an answer.
@salvage and @Matt
“There is no depth to atheism.” Is that supposed to be a feather in the cap of atheism? What a hoot! Irony, thy name is indeed, salvage!
@Roberto
People like salvage can have NO guiding moral principles based upon their atheism. They have to pilfer those from moral codes of theists. Again, Irony, thy name is ideed salvage!
>“There is no depth to atheism.” Is that supposed to be a feather in the cap of atheism?
No, it’s a simple truth as most truths are. That’s one of the things about religions that make them so unreal; the convoluted back story and reasoning.
>People like salvage can have NO guiding moral principles based upon their atheism.
Oh no just people like me, everyone, atheism has nothing to do with morality or anything else, it’s a refutation of a claim.
It’s bizarre that you can’t seem to understand that.
>They have to pilfer those from moral codes of theists.
And where did theism get it’s morality? Let me guess, your god? That would be the same god that killed all the Egyptian first born?
Actually morality comes from society but I suspect you’ll insist that it’s magic or something.
>Again, Irony, thy name is ideed salvage!
Yeah, people here keep saying that but I don’t think you understand what irony means.
@ChronicSinner: I agree that morality requires consideration of a non-material reality, so I did not ask for “moral” principles, just guiding principles. What does he use to make up his mind on life issues?
Interestingly, still no answer.
Notice that he seems to accuse God of killing, but why is killing bad in his view? If killing fetuses (as he prefers to call them) is OK, why is it bad to kill first-borns? I am not sure where his compass is, but I would like to know.
@Roberto
Bingo! There is no warrant, based upon atheism, for salvage or any other atheist to get all “high and mighty” when it comes to right or wrong, including murder. He says that atheism is nothing more than a refutation of a claim, when it is just the opposite…it claims that all there is the material world and that there is no God. Those are huge claims, both of which have been logically and rationally refuted completely by pagans, Christians, and non-Christians throughout the entirety of human history. It offers no answers to life’s big questions and is logically, philosophically, and scientifically a joke. Or as our buddy, salvage, said above: “It has no depth.”
(((“It has no depth.”)))
Hey I’ve heard that somewhere before but for the love of god, I can’t seem to remember where! 🙁
Could “ME” “MYSELF” AND/OR i have said “IT” somewhere, sometime and simply don’t remember NOW? 🙂
Peace
The atheists will be ‘laughing on the other side of their faces’ when they come before the living God. I pray they may receive the gift of faith and be saved.
Salvage,
Allow me to make a distinction. I wrote that the Church needs “better atheists” not “a better atheism.” You are right to say that atheism doesn’t come in degrees of goodness. Atheists, however, like everyone else in the world, do. By “better atheists” I mean atheists who take theism seriously enough to offer charitable, cogent, coherent, and tough arguments against theism. Neilsen and Flew do/did just that. Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist but he’s a lousy philosopher. . .by his own admission, he’s never read any philosophy, theology, etc. Hitchens was a great writer but his atheism amounted to little more than a caricature of fifth grader’s understanding of God. The Church needs atheists who understand the theist position and argue against it. Dawkins and Hitchens tilt at strawmen and windmills.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
Jeff, live forever. This is brilliant.
> I mean atheists who take theism seriously enough to offer charitable, cogent, coherent, and tough arguments against theism.
No, I don’ t think you’d be receptive to that at all but it’s a handy way for you to ignore the arguments I’m making by declaring them what? Miserly, mealy-mouthed, baffling and weak?
>Neilsen and Flew do/did just that.
Really? Can you provide a sample so that I may learn?
> he’s never read any philosophy, theology, etc.
I’ve never read any Dianetics doesn’t mean I can’t dismiss Scientology.
>Hitchens was a great writer but his atheism amounted to little more than a caricature of fifth grader’s understanding of God.
AH yes, the “That’s not MY god you’re talking about!” Your god is a mass-murdering lunatic or is the Flood story not true?
> The Church needs atheists who understand the theist position and argue against it. Dawkins and Hitchens tilt at strawmen and windmills.
The theist position is that their god is real, the atheist position is that there are no such things as gods. What more is there to it?
And no one ever answer this but why is your god real and all the other gods from the last 10,000 years false?
See that’s the big stumbling block, people have been making up gods for millennia and you will say none of them real for very sensible reasons; like their stories make no sense until we get to your god, then suddenly all those reasons for disbelief are no longer operable.
To argue against theism no strawmen are needed, the Bible is more than enough.
Salavge writes, “Your god is a mass-murdering lunatic or is the Flood story not true?”
See, folks. . .we need better atheists.
I gotta go see a man about a dog.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
>See, folks. . .we need better atheists
It’s neat how you try and ignore the foundations of your religion but it’s weird to think that people won’t notice.
@salvage: I will try another question, since you don’t seem interested in revealing your guiding principles.
Since you don’t think we are interested in cogent arguments and since you keep ignoring anything that we say here that refutes your assertions, what keeps you coming back? What utilitarian purpose motivates you to continue the discussion?
I am learning a lot from your comments, but what’s in it for you?
(((To argue against theism no strawmen are needed, the Bible is more than enough.)))
Salvage is right folks cause I looked and looked for God’s vs god vs atheist vs God and this is the best I could come UP with Jeff!
http://cat-chitchat.pictures-of-cats.org/2009/02/sylvester-cat-cartoon.html#!/2009/02/sylvester-cat-cartoon.html
Peace
Statements of fact, positive or negative, require some evidence to support them, in my opinion. Faith, does not.
>Faith, does not.
Sure and that’s why it’s not enough reason to believe in something.
Folks, he’s a troll. Leave him alone. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance. You have better things to do.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
Where is the scientific proof that God does not exist. What is the test for proving that hypothesis? What is the experiment that can be reproduced consistently and therefore prove there is NO GOD.
Right there isn’t one. So atheists do nothing more than express a negative belief in something they cannot quantifyingly prove. By definition. Believing in something that can not be proven is “faith”
The Catholic faith is hope: hope in God, hope in achieving Heaven. The Catholic Faith is also trust: trust in God’s Love, Trust In God’s Mercy, trust In Jesus.
The atheist also hopes and trusts: They hope they are right. they hope that when they die that is the end nothing else exists. The trust there own reason and logic, and perceptions.
Atheism is a faith not a science. Why then are theists constantly asked to prove God’s existence? The atheists are in the minority, Why not prove to us that God does not exist?
>Where is the scientific proof that God does not exist.
Where is the scientific proof that dragons do not exist?
Where is the scientific proof that Odin does not exist?
Where is the scientific proof that there isn’t a teapot orbiting Mars?
See that’s the problem with the trying to disprove a negative tactic, it can apply to anything therefore it’s pretty much worthless.
> What is the experiment that can be reproduced consistently and therefore prove there is NO GOD.
None that I can think of but what we can do is look at what we do know about the claims for your gods existence and what we know about reality.
If you take all that the only possible conclusion is that there are no such things as gods in general and no such thing as your god in specific.
> By definition. Believing in something that can not be proven is “faith”
It’s also called “delusion”. See I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can’t prove it of course but I wouldn’t bet against it. I have faith that my clients will pay their bills because I had them sign a contract, of course they could skip out but again it’s not likely. My faith in these things have a strong foundation.
Your “faith” in you god? No so much.
>The Catholic faith is hope: hope in God, hope in achieving Heaven. The Catholic Faith is also trust: trust in God’s Love, Trust In God’s Mercy, trust In Jesus.
And that is different from every other religion that you consider false because?
>Atheism is a faith not a science.
Nope and yes
There is no faith that there are no such things as gods anymore there is faith that there are no such things as fairies and unicorns.
But quite right, there is no science to it.
>Why then are theists constantly asked to prove God’s existence?
Because you are making a claim that is obviously not true. If I told you there were dragons running around the subway tunnels of New York City would you ask for some proof or would you take my “faith” that a dragon had to be making all that noise and making all that hot air? And that one time something big rushed passed me while I was on the platform. It had to be a dragon! What else could it be?
>The atheists are in the minority,
True but it’s a growing one and what’s Church attendance at these days?
Oh and isn’t Catholicism a minority in the ranks of theism? Isn’t that weird? Your religion is the One True One and yet it’s shrinking. That must upset your jealous god to no end!
>Why not prove to us that God does not exist?
Because you can’t disprove a negative, the onus is on you to prove your claims.
>Folks, he’s a troll. Leave him alone. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance. You have better things to do.
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am a troll, I never make any points, certainly don’t back them up and all I do is abuse people here!
It’s vitally important that theist ignore anyone who questions their religion otherwise you run the risk of thinking about it and nothing kills religion faster than thought.
(((* What is the experiment that can be reproduced consistently and therefore prove there is NO GOD. None that I can think of but what we can do is look at what we do know about the claims for your gods existence and what we know about reality.*)))
That reminds me of when I went into Real Estate during the mid, late 70’s and long story short “IT” was not easy but after about 3 years of selling Real Estate, my gods made me one of the top salesperson in our large Keith office. After selling an hotel and charging the owner 10% and also a store which gave me a little cash in my pocket “I” decided to try for my Broker’s Liscence and long story short, I studied and studies and passed “The Real Property Law Course” and then thought “I” was prepared to start “The appraisal Course” a few days later.
Will ya get to the point Victor and prove to U>S that your God exist in reality!
I’m getting there sinner vic but just give me a moment.
As “I” was about to say that around 1977 “I” believed that I was passed the half way Mark to getting my Brokers and if I got through “The Appraisal Course” all I would need was a little springling of holy water for the rest and then “I” would be home free and be the first Real Estate Broker of our poor family history.
LONG STORY SHORT! I guess that the alien gods thought “IT” was time to take con troll of my success and don’t ask me to explain “IT” but my 97% body flesh cells which sinner vic owned decided to co-operate with these alien gods and if “I” agreed, “I” would be the first human to ever had been given a chance to sell souls and/or spiritual housing for the alien gods.
Stop “IT” right there Victor! You can’t do that cause you are no better than a “Down Syndrom Child” AND DID WE NOT PROVE “IT” TO YOU BY PLACING YOU IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL FOR A THIRD TIME?
Why are you yelling sinner? I’m the one who should be UP SET cause I did nothing wrong but walked from my parents house to my brother’s house a few doors away wearing my P. J. and for that “I” got a 13 day stay in a mental hospital!
Don’t listen to this fetus folks cause he add “IT” COMING! When he got out of the hospital, he even tried to con his Captain to put him to work right away. OK! “I” agree that he should have went back to work cause he did not deserve that large weekly salery that the insurance company was paying him and “IT” helped force Keith Real Estate to go out of business. Go Figure!
YOU STOP “IT” sinner vic cause you’re way off topic and if “I” wanted to tell these good folks my life story, I would start a 3rd blog and me, myself and i would tell them myself, so stay out of “IT” if you know what’s good for ya! 🙁
I better close NOW and say that The Lit nest test….to prove….and/or not prove to us that God does exist and/or god does not exist has not evolved yet and leave “IT” at that?
Nope and yes! In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same and “IT” is Butt quite right, there is no science to it NOW ! 🙂
Peace
Fr. Neri, with all due respect, I used to consider salvage a troll, but I have realized that he (I assume he is a male: ladies are wiser than this!) he raises many issues that some Catholics have not considered deeply enough. So, we can use his comments as vehicles of evangelization for the rest of the readers.
Of course, when it comes to answering questions, his invincible ignorance quickly becomes evident. In fact he is not even answering my basic questions, not sure why.
So, let us encourage all readers to find out more about the issues salvage brings up. This will help them discover the rich intellectual and spiritual heritage of the Church, one that salvage systematically ignores in favour of his pet objections, all of which have been raised, addressed and answered innumerable times.
I agree Roberto. I would recommend the book ” New proofs for the existence of God: contributions of contemporary physics and philosophy” By Robert J. Spitzer SJ PhD
I’m with Roberto on this one. This is a great way to evangelize those readers with an open mind or whom have been poorly catechized and who are searching for what the Church really teaches. It’s also a great way to show the wealth of Church tradition when it comes to reasoned arguments for the existence of God.
So I say roll out the welcome mat for the little gadfly…challenge the little troll to stand up and defend his “creed” and you’ll soon find out he’s nothing but your garden variety atheist…long on attitude, animus, and agenda but short on rational aruments. Guys and galls, do treat him gently, though…he’s still trying to figure out what a triangle is.
P.S. The book recommended above by Fr. Spitzer is very good!
>show the wealth of Church tradition when it comes to reasoned arguments for the existence of God.
Ya mean like setting people on fire for saying that your god doesn’t exist / prefers Protestants? That tradition?
It’s adorable how you think your Dark Ages organization is open minded.
@ salvage
Make you a bet. I bet that I can make a logically airtight philosophical argument for the supernatural origin of the universe, better than you can make one for the materialistic origin of the universe. Are you up for it?
In a debate one can attack an argument in two ways either show the flaw in the logic, or refuse to accept the premises. If he can’t find flaw with the argument he will just dismiss the premises you make. Refuse to agree on the premises and the debate cannot occur.
I wager Salvage will not take you up on your offer.
I have to wonder as well, why is Salvage doing here? What is she getting out it? Does she thrive on debate or playing cock-a-snook or just like bearding the bear in its den?
OR is she after higher things?
@Panda Rosa
I kinda like him/her…reminds me of that little chicken hawk character in the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons I used to watch back when cartoons were still funny.
If you guys wanna crack your heads open on his invincible ignorance. . .go for it! One of my fav atheist philosophy profs in college used to say, “When confronted with an irrational opponent, tell him you gotta go see a man about a dog.”
If you want to be challenged by a brilliant atheist, check out Kai Neilsen’s books. He understands the faith and takes it seriously. I’ve heard him lecture. I’ve heard Dawkins lecture (at Oxford). He’s an embarrassment to the atheist cause.
http://www.amazon.com/Kai-Nielsen/e/B001HPCSBQ/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1336675993&sr=8-1
> Are you up for it?
Not as a bet because obviously you will insist you are right no matter what but I’d still enjoy hearing it.
>If he can’t find flaw with the argument he will just dismiss the premises you make
If the premise is the supernatural then of course, there’s no such thing as magic.