My Journey From Catholicism To Atheism And Back

[Dr_Asik]

Are you intentionally taking the position that you know what I was attempting to communicate and I don't? 

I'm taking the position that your statements contradict each other. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Winchester]

I'm taking the position that your statements contradict each other. Everyone makes mistakes.

I'm not everyone.

[Anomaly]

I'm referring to what New Advent calls "Materialistic Naturalism", i.e. the belief that the only thing that exists is matter and laws governing its behavior.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any convincing reason for holding that it's true. It seems like a convenient device of the "imagination", as you suggest, to keep holding unto our intuitive ethical norms despite the failure of our metaphysical worldview (in a naturalistic perspective) to support them. Saying "I feel that XYZ" is all well and good, but feeling is subjective and not communicable. What if someone comes around and says "well I don't feel that XYZ"?

The claim that purpose is being determined be an omniscient Gid works only aim a macro relationship with humanity, but falls short as an "objective" principle on personal relationship. At that point it relies on "Faith" and turning to tihe mysterious and unfathomable nature of God and /or a developing relationship with humanity. The is no consistent and rational principle that is recognizable.

Where is the Catholic God that knows every hair on everyone's head, all providing, omnipotent, all loving, creator of all, when people are born, raised, live, and die in an anti-Christian culture, doing what they feel is the right and best thing according to their knowledge, experience, and conscience?

If God judges intent and desire, then why the requirement and restrictions based too much on physical acts as the very limited means of salvation within a sociological cultural construct if a specific religion? The logical outcome is the continued splintering and evolving irelevancy of the religions.

[Fidei Defensor]

The claim that purpose is being determined be an omniscient Gid works only aim a macro relationship with humanity, but falls short as an "objective" principle on personal relationship. At that point it relies on "Faith" and turning to tihe mysterious and unfathomable nature of God and /or a developing relationship with humanity. The is no consistent and rational principle that is recognizable.

Where is the Catholic God that knows every hair on everyone's head, all providing, omnipotent, all loving, creator of all, when people are born, raised, live, and die in an anti-Christian culture, doing what they feel is the right and best thing according to their knowledge, experience, and conscience?

If God judges intent and desire, then why the requirement and restrictions based too much on physical acts as the very limited means of salvation within a sociological cultural construct if a specific religion? The logical outcome is the continued splintering and evolving irelevancy of the religions.

You're right, God does judge intent and desire. Where is He? The same place he always is, with humanity.  People who live good lives based on what they know are not condemned for it.

[Socrates]

Atheism requires a leap of faith the same as theism.

 

 

 

It's all subjective, anyway. It always comes down to your interpretation. Rule of law (divine or man made) is ultimately illusory.

 

You dodged the question, though it appears your view would best be described as agnostic.

It's certainly not Catholic, as stated in your profile.

Truth is not subjective.  Divine law is not illusory.

 

 

The Golden Rule is problematic if the person living by it is a masochist, isn't it? Do you consider that a flaw in the rule itself, or in mankind?

 

 

The problem would be with the masochist, as this is disordered.  Seems you're playing sophistical games here, though.  Most reasonable people understand what the Golden Rule means; you've hardly proven all morality subjective.

 

I really don't know how to deal with what I see as grossly oversimplified criticisms. OP created a simplified, stupid atheist and then proceeded to argue against him. I didn't make happiness a goal in my arguments, so I'll let whomever you're arguing with there defend against your slippery slope fallacy.

 

 

As I understood, Dr. Asik didn't create anything.  He was simply telling the story of his own personal intellectual journey from lack of religious belief to the Catholic Faith.

 

If all human experience is illusory and subjective as you suggest, then you have absolutely no basis for judging Dr. Asik's subjective personal mental journey towards religious faith any less true or valid than your own journey away from faith.

 

You can google Dr. Peter Singer to learn about the views I am referring to.  He's head of the Bioethics department at Princeton.  I didn't accuse anyone here of agreeing with him, just pointing out that his logic is hard to refute if one begins with the premise that there is no God, and human beings are ultimately nothing more than accidental pieces of matter.  These views aren't a slippery-slope fallacy.  Plenty of people actually hold these views.

 

 

 

A lot of atheists have a superstitious view of when humanity is bestowed. Some believe in might makes right (so do many, many Christians. I know because they extoll the virtues of mob rule democracy) There are any number of reasons why atheists might believe that. 

 

 

Atheists of Singer's ilk claim that the idea that the humanity of a life makes it sacred to be a superstitious religious belief.

Why not kill a human fetus if it's simply a piece of matter?

 

Who was arguing that is overall tended to increase respect for human life?

 

 

You did speak of your loss of faith somehow increased your desire to protect human life.  I was pointing out that this sentiment is far from universal.

[Socrates]

 

 

Cute, but nobody claimed that expectation of divine reward was their only reason for being decent.

 

 

I find the whole "Christians are morally inferior because they're motivated by eternal reward/punishment" to be one of the most inane atheistic "moral" "arguments."

 

You should know that Christians/Catholics consider it far better to act virtuously out of love for God and neighbor than out of fear of hell or promise of heaven.

But it is still better for one to act virtuously out of fear or desire than to do evil.

 

 If there is no eternal reward or punishment, it means that life remains fundamentally unjust in many cases.  Many evil men have it good in this life, and many good men face nothing but hardship and suffering.

[Dr_Asik]

The claim that purpose is being determined be an omniscient Gid works only aim a macro relationship with humanity, but falls short as an "objective" principle on personal relationship. At that point it relies on "Faith" and turning to tihe mysterious and unfathomable nature of God and /or a developing relationship with humanity. The is no consistent and rational principle that is recognizable.

There would be no reason to think that God cares at all about us without any active intervention of this God in History. The Greeks had figured out that there had to be some kind of first immutable motor to the universe (what Aquinas equated with God), but human life was in the hands of obscure and fickle forces such as Destiny. I think they were right, from their perspective, and we'd probably still be there, if there hadn't been prophets and Jesus-Christ. By espousing our nature, our suffering and our death, Aristotle's prime motor has become a caring Father for humanity, one that is near, that loves us, that listens to our prayers. We could never have discovered this by our own means, but God has chosen to reveal it to us.

Where is the Catholic God that knows every hair on everyone's head, all providing, omnipotent, all loving, creator of all, when people are born, raised, live, and die in an anti-Christian culture, doing what they feel is the right and best thing according to their knowledge, experience, and conscience?

He's there waiting for them to turn to Him. Of course this may be impossible due to the level of ignorance or cultural hostility towards Christian faith; God will not judge an individual for what he couldn't have known.

 

If God judges intent and desire, then why the requirement and restrictions based too much on physical acts as the very limited means of salvation within a sociological cultural construct if a specific religion? The logical outcome is the continued splintering and evolving irelevancy of the religions.

I think Christianity has amply demonstrated through its 2000 years of History and international spread that it far transcends the cultural and sociological. While salvation is possible despite ignorance of Jesus-Christ, if one acts and searches for the truth in good faith, it is also certain that it is Jesus-Christ that is the paradigm of the good, and that deprived of this light, man cannot live up to its full potential, its intrinsic destiny to be son of God renewed by Baptism and infused of the Holy Spirit.

[Winchester]

Cute, but nobody claimed that expectation of divine reward was their only reason for being decent.

 

 

 

I'm impressed that you've interviewed the entire population of the Earth.

 

You missed the point of the quote in your attempt to defend against an attack not made.

[Winchester]

You dodged the question, though it appears your view would best be described as agnostic.

It's certainly not Catholic, as stated in your profile.

Truth is not subjective.  Divine law is not illusory.

 

 

 

The problem would be with the masochist, as this is disordered.  Seems you're playing sophistical games here, though.  Most reasonable people understand what the Golden Rule means; you've hardly proven all morality subjective.

 

 

As I understood, Dr. Asik didn't create anything.  He was simply telling the story of his own personal intellectual journey from lack of religious belief to the Catholic Faith.

 

If all human experience is illusory and subjective as you suggest, then you have absolutely no basis for judging Dr. Asik's subjective personal mental journey towards religious faith any less true or valid than your own journey away from faith.

 

You can google Dr. Peter Singer to learn about the views I am referring to.  He's head of the Bioethics department at Princeton.  I didn't accuse anyone here of agreeing with him, just pointing out that his logic is hard to refute if one begins with the premise that there is no God, and human beings are ultimately nothing more than accidental pieces of matter.  These views aren't a slippery-slope fallacy.  Plenty of people actually hold these views.

 

 

 

 

Atheists of Singer's ilk claim that the idea that the humanity of a life makes it sacred to be a superstitious religious belief.

Why not kill a human fetus if it's simply a piece of matter?

 

 

You did speak of your loss of faith somehow increased your desire to protect human life.  I was pointing out that this sentiment is far from universal.

I haven't attempted to prove that reality is subjective. I've observed that in reality, humans interpret. So "the law" you speak of as it's modeled in your brain is subjective. This is true of everyone. There could be an objective reality. I would hazard to say there is. But you're interpreting it to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy. An accurate interpretation is still an interpretation. Your subjectivity can square with objectivity. But it's still subjective.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

There would be no reason to think that God cares at all about us without any active intervention of this God in History. The Greeks had figured out that there had to be some kind of first immutable motor to the universe (what Aquinas equated with God), but human life was in the hands of obscure and fickle forces such as Destiny. I think they were right, from their perspective, and we'd probably still be there, if there hadn't been prophets and Jesus-Christ. By espousing our nature, our suffering and our death, Aristotle's prime motor has become a caring Father for humanity, one that is near, that loves us, that listens to our prayers. We could never have discovered this by our own means, but God has chosen to reveal it to us.
He's there waiting for them to turn to Him. Of course this may be impossible due to the level of ignorance or cultural hostility towards Christian faith; God will not judge an individual for what he couldn't have known.

I think Christianity has amply demonstrated through its 2000 years of History and international spread that it far transcends the cultural and sociological. While salvation is possible despite ignorance of Jesus-Christ, if one acts and searches for the truth in good faith, it is also certain that it is Jesus-Christ that is the paradigm of the good, and that deprived of this light, man cannot live up to its full potential, its intrinsic destiny to be son of God renewed by Baptism and infused of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for the response. I'll try to respond as best I can via my limited capabilities and a phone.

As far as Gods active intervention, that is highly debatable. Humanity has a long history of subjective explanations of the tragedies and joys of our human existence. The prevalence or dominance of sets of beliefs are more dependent upon the factors of geo-political winners and losers. For example, it can be argued Christianity is currently dominant over Islam due to population, concentration of resources, and geography more then a superior theology.

Again, it's purely theoretical when humanity ascribes motivation, intent, and Divine purpose to a Prime motor. I don't see the logic being consistent in explaining the random suffering of people, either in short term or long term history. It's a great justification when you are the current winner.

[Perigrina]

Again, it's purely theoretical when humanity ascribes motivation, intent, and Divine purpose to a Prime motor. I don't see the logic being consistent in explaining the random suffering of people, either in short term or long term history. It's a great justification when you are the current winner.

 

I don't know about history, but when it comes to personal suffering, Catholicism makes a huge difference.  

[Socrates]

I'm impressed that you've interviewed the entire population of the Earth.

 

I was referring to the people posting in this thread, smartbutt.

 

You missed the point of the quote in your attempt to defend against an attack not made.

 

 

And the point was?

 

It seems irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[Winchester]

 

And the point was?

 

It seems irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

 

 

“If you can’t understand it without an explanation, you can’t understand it with an explanation” Haruki Murakami

 

 

Of course, Einstein allegedly said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Edited June 13, 2014 by Winchester

[Socrates]

I haven't attempted to prove that reality is subjective. I've observed that in reality, humans interpret. So "the law" you speak of as it's modeled in your brain is subjective. This is true of everyone. There could be an objective reality. I would hazard to say there is. But you're interpreting it to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy. An accurate interpretation is still an interpretation. Your subjectivity can square with objectivity. But it's still subjective.

 

Seems you've bought into the fashionable but asinine philosophical notion that the human mind cannot know objective truth.  (Wait, is that objectively true??)

 

If that is the case, and everybody's thoughts and experiences are subjective and illusory, then all rational argument (and human reason itself) is rendered meaningless and pointless, so there's no point in further debate.

 

Of course, all this begs the question:  Are the precepts of anarcho-capitalism (the non-aggression prinicple, the intrinsic evil of the state, etc.) likewise subjective and illusory?  

[Winchester]

Seems you've bought into the fashionable but asinine philosophical notion that the human mind cannot know objective truth.  (Wait, is that objectively true??)

 

If that is the case, and everybody's thoughts and experiences are subjective and illusory, then all rational argument (and human reason itself) is rendered meaningless and pointless, so there's no point in further debate.

 

 

That's a leap. It's understandable, but I don't think it's necessary. Acknowledging that we all interpret doesn't mean communication is impossible or that knowing the truth is impossible. It's cautionary. 

 

The belief that the Holy Spirit can remove that impediment is a matter of faith, never to be proven by physical science.

 

 

 

And that's not how "begs the question" works.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Winchester

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Welcome Dr Asik. I'm don't get much into all the doctrine of the holy roman catholic church either but i do know as a catholic i must accept and believe the matters of infallible faith and morals as being absolutes, the rest is debatable or better yet open for discussion to one degree or another, or at least grows, being that the churches understanding of such manners deepen in the truth. These 5 infallible matters of faith and morals are. 1. The primacy of the pope. 2. The magesterium of the church 3. Jesus real and perpetual presence in the holy eucharist. 4. The absolution of the confessional and 5. The immaculate conception.

 

There may be other matters that are spoken as being infallible or the absolute truth that i have not been alerted to as yet. The rest is kind of a journey of growing in understanding of all truth over time, personally and communally. The church as a whole in itself is definitely not infallible though upon all matters of faith and morals.

 

Also i'm unsure exactly what the magesterium of the church is, my understanding is that it is the teaching authority of the pope,cardinals,bishops and priests. And i think there are 2 magesterials, the holy and ordinary, i'm guessing the holy is the pope and cardinals and the ordinary is the bishops and priests, and of course the holy trumps the ordinary.

 

I'm not trying to mislead anyone i'm new at this and only learning and haven't asked a priest yet what it is, though i think i did ask someone a few years ago and that is what they told me that the magesterium is the teaching authority of the church which is the pope,cardinals,bishops and priests, or i heard it somewhere anyway, perhaps someone can alert us to what the magesterium actually is that knows what it is.

[chrysostom]

And that's not how "begs the question" works.

 

AMEN TO THAT