From Atheist To Catholic

[bonkers]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1811291' date='Mar 19 2009, 01:16 AM']So you're going to tell me that actually, nobody has ever had a sickness cured by what they believed to be Lourdes water?[/quote]

Not that I have experienced or witnessed. Would another persons "story" be sufficient for you drop everything you believe and adopt a new way of life? You can't also deny the psychosomatic benefits of drinking water you think is holy and am convinced will cure you of any ailment. And what about all the people who have gone to Lourdes expecting to be cured and ended up dead? I'm pretty sure if you were to compare the stats properly there wouldn't be too much difference between Lourdes and any regular hospital.

[quote]I am, however, out of my league when we start talking about specifics in this, so if we're going to continue, you'll have to find a better sparring partner than myself.[/quote]

I win.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811294' date='Mar 19 2009, 12:26 AM']Not that I have experienced or witnessed. Would another persons "story" be sufficient for you drop everything you believe and adopt a new way of life? You can't also deny the psychosomatic benefits of drinking water you think is holy and am convinced will cure you of any ailment.[/quote]
You also have experienced or witnessed a very large number of scientific theories and laws.

[quote]And what about all the people who have gone to Lourdes expecting to be cured and ended up dead? I'm pretty sure if you were to compare the stats properly there wouldn't be too much difference between Lourdes and any regular hospital.[/quote]
Any hospital that cures with placebo alone gets some major props from me...


Long story short, no matter how you paint it, there are inexplicable elements to our miracle stories. You can address as many of them as you like, and neither side will ever be satisfied, because we always have more miracles, and you always have a way out.
What it has to come down to is the very core of your belief. Think about that.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1811297' date='Mar 19 2009, 01:33 AM']You also have experienced or witnessed a very large number of scientific theories and laws.[/quote]

eh?

[quote]Any hospital that cures with placebo alone gets some major props from me...[/quote]

Sure, but that doesn't make them miracles.

[quote]Long story short, no matter how you paint it, there are inexplicable elements to our miracle stories. You can address as many of them as you like, and neither side will ever be satisfied, because we always have more miracles, and you always have a way out.
What it has to come down to is the very core of your belief. Think about that.[/quote]

For sure. You're a believer and I'm a skeptic, this pervades all areas of our lives. I'm naturally suspicious and unwilling to commit to something until it's proven beyond a reasoable doubt. I think miracle claims are almost always false and the one's that occassionally arouse curiosity sometimes require a more intricrate explanation, and even if we can't explain something entirely doesn't mean god did it. My point is unexplainable doesn't mean god. For something to mean god it should be explainable by god and not exploit our ignorance.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1811101' date='Mar 18 2009, 10:48 PM']You actually have no evidence either, but since the wager has infinite value, and I would rather risk being and doing good than sitting on the fence and saying Oops and finding out the hard way.[/quote]

My thoughts precisely. I admit I struggle with my faith, as precious as it is to me...but I would rather stand with it then abandon it and discover I was wrong. If I am wrong, then at the very least I know I've lived a good, honorable life that I don't regret.

Edited March 19, 2009 by MissyP89

[bonkers]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1811333' date='Mar 19 2009, 01:06 AM']My thoughts precisely. I admit I struggle with my faith, as precious as it is to me...but I would rather stand with it then abandon it and discover I was wrong. If I am wrong, then at the very least I know I've lived a good, honorable life that I don't regret.[/quote]

True, I guess false hope isn't really all that harmful. I remember making a decision to believe in truth no matter where it leads, I guess because I think a life that conforms with reality is more fulfilling than one that doesn't, and I wasn't going to be dictatated by a fear of being wrong and going to hell. But that's just me, everybodies different.

[eagle_eye222001]

Bonkers,

If you were to tell me with a straight face, that civilization and life as we know it came from nothing on its own.......I couldn't believe that.

You do not get something from nothing. Intelligence does not come from nothing. There must be a beginning of some sort.


Given the bible and this supposed Jesus that existed.....the people that died for him....the Catholic faith....when I consider all that together, it seems to make the most sense. It offers the strongest and the safest, but not the easiest moral standards for society, and it offers a much more reasonable explanation than any other faith in my opinion.

In the end, one must wonder how we came to be like this. Science can do wonders in showing why something happens. However, science ultimately cannot answer the "why" and will never be fully sufficient and will not show us how we were able to get this world from nothing.

----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/skillet/track/whispers+in+the+dark"]Skillet - Whispers In the Dark[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811327' date='Mar 19 2009, 01:02 AM']For sure. You're a believer and I'm a skeptic, this pervades all areas of our lives. I'm naturally suspicious and unwilling to commit to something until it's proven beyond a reasoable doubt. I think miracle claims are almost always false and the one's that occassionally arouse curiosity sometimes require a more intricrate explanation, and even if we can't explain something entirely doesn't mean god did it. My point is unexplainable doesn't mean god. For something to mean god it should be explainable by god and not exploit our ignorance.[/quote]
What, you threw out Occam's Razor when science started to get tougher than religion?

I don't see why the dichotomy has to exist though. I'd say 99.5% or more of the Catholics that you'll meet, including this board, accept and believe everything science can prove. There's no reason to throw it out the window when you believe in God.

There seems to be some kind of fundemental disconnect between the way believers understand science and the way sceptics do. We've explained so many times, enough times that I think it's impossible for you to understand us the way we want you to.

[Ziggamafu]

The choice between atheism and theism is not a matter of science, but of rationality. You figure out which position is more reasonable and you go with that. Both sides represent people who don't know it all and aim for truth. Both sides have their devils and skeletons. But which side affords a more consistent and intellectually honest life? Which side is more practically suited to the human condition?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[bonkers]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1811339' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:18 AM']If you were to tell me with a straight face, that civilization and life as we know it came from nothing on its own.......I couldn't believe that. [/quote]

Neither could I. [i]Something[/i] must have always existed, I don't know what, perhaps the universe has always existed on some form or another. The problem with inserting the word 'god' in there is it demands the exact same explanation, for example, where did god come from, why is god, who is god etc. There are no satisying answers to any of these questions other than that god just is, so I apply the same logic to the origins of the universe.. it just is..

[quote]You do not get something from nothing. Intelligence does not come from nothing. There must be a beginning of some sort.[/quote]

God had a beginning?

[quote]Given the bible and this supposed Jesus that existed.....the people that died for him....the Catholic faith....when I consider all that together, it seems to make the most sense. It offers the strongest and the safest, but not the easiest moral standards for society, and it offers a much more reasonable explanation than any other faith in my opinion.[/quote]

If you were born in the middle east you would say the same about Islam.

[quote]In the end, one must wonder how we came to be like this. Science can do wonders in showing why something happens. However, science ultimately cannot answer the "why" and will never be fully sufficient and will not show us how we were able to get this world from nothing.[/quote]

Religion can't help us here either.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1811410' date='Mar 19 2009, 08:03 AM']The choice between atheism and theism is not a matter of science, but of rationality. You figure out which position is more reasonable and you go with that. Both sides represent people who don't know it all and aim for truth. Both sides have their devils and skeletons. But which side affords a more consistent and intellectually honest life? Which side is more practically suited to the human condition?[/quote]

Perhaps it depends on the individual. I know for myself I am better suited and more comfortable with atheism. I have learned through experience. Intellectual honesty for me has no room for god, at least not the christian kind. Perhaps others might profit from belief, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1811342' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:21 AM']What, you threw out Occam's Razor when science started to get tougher than religion?

I don't see why the dichotomy has to exist though. I'd say 99.5% or more of the Catholics that you'll meet, including this board, accept and believe everything science can prove. There's no reason to throw it out the window when you believe in God.

There seems to be some kind of fundemental disconnect between the way believers understand science and the way sceptics do. We've explained so many times, enough times that I think it's impossible for you to understand us the way we want you to.[/quote]

The difference is science is reliable and religion is not. Science is testable, measurable and observable, religion has no such controls. I think religion and science can co-exist to an extent, so long religion doesn't interferes with science in any capacity. It's not that science overules religion, it's just that religion doesn't make any sense.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811439' date='Mar 19 2009, 09:42 AM']Intellectual honesty for me has no room for god, at least not the christian kind.[/quote]

Perhaps; but I would challenge that. I assert that intellectual honesty demands in practicality that the existence of God be acknowledged as a necessary presumption. Cogito ergo sum is not an empirically verifiable proposition, yet its acceptance is an absolute necessity for practicality. God's existence may not be empirically verifiable (by definition, you cannot examine a spirit under a microscope; God is not a space alien) but the existence of God is a presumption so necessary that it is no less honest to refer to it as "fact" than it is to assert the same level of moral certainty in one's own existence. God's existence is a vital base of the scientific process - which is founded upon reason and the value of critical thinking (i.e., argumentation) - and is the only foundation upon which meaning / value may objectively rest. And as humans have been hard-wired toward these predispositions of meaning, value, and reason, it would seem that if indeed God did not exist, the nature of the evolutionary process would be to weed the atheists, who have peeked behind the curtain of evolution's grand deception (meaning), out of the larger population. If it is correct to say that I think therefore I am, then it is equally correct to say that I argue therefore God is. That is my own conclusion and it is what ultimately drove me out of my atheism. I am currently trying to get this argument published, so I can't really expound on it further without screwing my odds of getting it in print. However, I will PM you the full article.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811327' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:02 AM']My point is unexplainable doesn't mean god. For something to mean god it should be explainable by god and not exploit our ignorance.[/quote]

What about when what we observe scientifically contradicts what is proven by science?

Ever read "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1811436' date='Mar 19 2009, 09:37 AM']Neither could I. [i]Something[/i] must have always existed, I don't know what, perhaps the universe has always existed on some form or another. The problem with inserting the word 'god' in there is it demands the exact same explanation, for example, where did god come from, why is god, who is god etc. There are no satisying answers to any of these questions other than that god just is, so I apply the same logic to the origins of the universe.. it just is..[/quote]

God has the power to always have existed. The universe does not.



[quote]God had a beginning?[/quote]

He doesn't need one. He has the power to. The universe does not.



[quote]If you were born in the middle east you would say the same about Islam.[/quote]

Not honestly I could. Yes culture has a lot of influence so you must be willing to investigate yourself outside the box.


----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/flipsyde/track/happy+birthday"]Flipsyde - Happy Birthday[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1811508' date='Mar 19 2009, 11:50 AM']Perhaps; but I would challenge that. I assert that intellectual honesty demands in practicality that the existence of God be acknowledged as a necessary presumption.[/quote]

Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?

[quote]Cogito ergo sum is not an empirically verifiable proposition, yet its acceptance is an absolute necessity for practicality.[/quote]

No it's not. It's been seriously contested since Hume's time and almost no serious philosophers or cognitive scientists accecpt it's conclusion. At least not like anything Descartes had in mind.


[quote]God's existence may not be empirically verifiable (by definition, you cannot examine a spirit under a microscope; God is not a space alien)[/quote]


That is not a priori true.

[quote]but the existence of God is a presumption so necessary that it is no less honest to refer to it as "fact" than it is to assert the same level of moral certainty in one's own existence. God's existence is a vital base of the scientific process - which is founded upon reason and the value of critical thinking (i.e., argumentation) - and is the only foundation upon which meaning / value may objectively rest.[/quote]

You need to give some support here

[quote]And as humans have been hard-wired toward these predispositions of meaning, value, and reason, it would seem that if indeed God did not exist, the nature of the evolutionary process would be to weed the atheists, who have peeked behind the curtain of evolution's grand deception (meaning), out of the larger population.[/quote]

Take away the teleological addition to natural selection and you may be to some extent correct. Simply because there is no rational reason to believe in God or an objectively meaningful life does in no way mean it is not evolutionairly beneficial to believe.

[quote]If it is correct to say that I think therefore I am, then it is equally correct to say that I argue therefore God is.[/quote]

Well the antecedent is highly contestable and almost certianly false, at least in terms of what Descartes believed the conclusion to be. I have seen no logical reason here to accecpt your antecedent, that there is a logically necessary movement from that antecedent to your consequent, or how the consequent on its own is even coherent

[quote]That is my own conclusion and it is what ultimately drove me out of my atheism. I am currently trying to get this argument published, so I can't really expound on it further without screwing my odds of getting it in print. However, I will PM you the full article.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure you can't PM him.

[Arpy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1811702' date='Mar 19 2009, 11:42 AM']Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?[/quote]
Isn't it rather dishonest to restrict the available explanations to a problem to empirical data? Yes, accepting nonempirical data is not [i]scientifically[/i] honest, but intellectually speaking, I don't see why not.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Arpy' post='1811724' date='Mar 19 2009, 03:09 PM']Isn't it rather dishonest to restrict the available explanations to a problem to empirical data? Yes, accepting nonempirical data is not [i]scientifically[/i] honest, but intellectually speaking, I don't see why not.[/quote]

Could you clarify a bit?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1811702' date='Mar 19 2009, 02:42 PM']Then everyone who rejects your God is intelectually dishonest?

...No it's not. It's been seriously contested since Hume's time and almost no serious philosophers or cognitive scientists accecpt it's conclusion. At least not like anything Descartes had in mind...Well the antecedent is highly contestable and almost certianly false, at least in terms of what Descartes believed the conclusion to be. I have seen no logical reason here to accecpt your antecedent, that there is a logically necessary movement from that antecedent to your consequent, or how the consequent on its own is even coherent[/quote]

First of all, you should not be so hasty. Your initial question clearly implies that I have insisted upon my own religion when in fact I did not. Either quote my insistence on Catholicism in the post you are pointing to or apologize for your misrepresentation of my argument. Thanks.

The only objection to cogito ergo sum is a variation on the so-called Skeptical Hypothesis; yes, of course Descartes' assertion here is not provable to the extent of empirical certainty, which is exactly the point. A practical life is impossible - or at least extraordinarily difficult - to live with intellectual honesty when one considers oneself a mere BIV. Thus cogito ergo sum is a presumption treated necessarily as fact.

My syllogistic formatting of my argument:

I.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists independently of any consciousness in the universe
B. For that of the universe to exist independently of any consciousness in the universe is for that of the universe to exist “objectively”
C. Therefore, both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively

This first syllogism merely serves to offer a logical proof for the common definition of “objectivity”. Screwing around with the terms laid out for objectivity is utterly fruitless and immediately renders any subsequent critical thought process superfluous. That truth is defined by that which correlates with reality is an absolutely necessary presumption; an agreed upon given by every dictionary, to say nothing of commonsense.

II.
A. Both reality and truth are defined by that of the universe which exists objectively
B. According to atheism, neither meaning nor value exist objectively
C. Therefore, according to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.

This second syllogism presumes a necessary and universally accepted stance of atheism; that, since consciousness is required for things to be labeled “meaningful” or “valuable” and there is no eternal consciousness, then meaning and value are purely and strictly subjective – that is, although seeming to be “real” and “true”, the concepts of meaning and value are actually a convincing illusion of evolution and will cease to exist upon the inevitable and unavoidable death of the last consciousness.

III.
A. According to atheism, there exists neither meaning nor value that is real or true.
B. The appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of meaning and value.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.

The atheist should have already agreed with the major premise, as it was the conclusion of the second syllogism. Since the conclusion here necessarily follows from the minor premise, the atheist’s only avenue of objection could be the minor premise. But to object to the minor premise, the atheist would have to provide an example of something that could be appreciated or desired in which there is simultaneously no perceived value or meaning. This of course is an absurd contradiction. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the fourth syllogism:

IV.
A. According to atheism, the appreciation of and desire for any and all things within the human experience is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.
B. The basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is the appreciation of and desire for things within the human experience.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.

Again, the atheist can only attack the minor premise. But to attack the minor premise, the atheist must demonstrate that there could be some basis and motivation for inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness other than appreciation or desire for things within the human experience. This of course is an absurd contradiction, for every deliberate action – whether in thought or deed – stems from the appreciation of something or the desire for something. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the fifth syllogism:

V.
A. According to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true.
B. That which is dependant on perceptions of that which is neither real nor true is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Once again (do you notice a pattern developing?) the atheist can only challenge the minor premise. Yet the atheist’s challenge could only come in the form of a demonstration that a concept or thought-process could owe its own validity to – that is, that its very existence as something real or true could be directly dependant upon – perceptions of that which is invalid. This is of course an absurd contradiction and the premise therefore stands. Moving on to the sixth syllogism:

VI.
A. According to atheism, the basis and motivation for all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That whish is based on and motivated by that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

As has been and will continue to be the case, the atheist can only challenge the minor premise, having been forced to concede to each prior conclusion. But to do so, the atheist would have to demonstrate that something which depends on something that is neither real nor true is in fact real and true. But if I owe my existence to the griffon and the griffon does not exist, then neither can I exist, for from nothing, nothing comes. Any challenge of the minor premise would once again be an absurd contradiction. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the seventh syllogism:

VII.
A. According to atheism, all inquiry, arbitration, progress, and happiness is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. The profession, explanation, or argumentation of a concept or belief is a system of and for inquiry, arbitration, progress, and / or happiness.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue a concept or belief is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Cutting to the chase here, the minor premise can only be objected to if the atheist can demonstrate that professing, explaining, or arguing his points is not actually of or for inquiry, arbitration, progress and / or maybe even happiness. But if his points aren’t aimed at progress, then they aren’t actually points. And if he hasn’t used judgment (arbitration) to arrive at his points then he certainly cannot explain them. And how could his current points have originated without his own inquiry? Once again, the atheist’s attempts to refute the minor premise would represent absurdity. The premise therefore stands.
Moving on to the eighth syllogism:

VIII.
A. According to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue a concept or belief is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. Atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is a concept.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

Since the minor premise is self-evident, we will move along to the ninth syllogism:

IX.
A. According to atheism, to profess, explain, or argue Atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That which is of and for that which is superfluous, illusionary, and errant is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the profession, explanation, or argument of atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

As the minor premise of this syllogism is obviously defended in the same way as the minor premise of the sixth syllogism, we will move along to the concluding syllogism:

X.
A. According to atheism, the profession, explanation, or argument of atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
B. That which it is superfluous, illusionary, and errant to profess, explain, or argue is itself superfluous, illusionary, and errant.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, atheism – along with all other ideas, whether of the sciences or the humanities – is superfluous, illusionary, and errant.

The atheist’s last means of escape is to offer a challenge to this final syllogism’s minor premise. But how could something which it is superfluous, illusionary, and errant to profess, explain, or defend itself have any truth or reality in value? It cannot. And besides that, the second and third syllogisms already proved that there is no reality or truth to “value” in the atheist’s world-view to begin with. The premise therefore stands and thus, so too does the conclusion.

And there we have it. Atheism has been proven by itself to be errant in ten syllogisms. But perhaps we could summarize the argument into two syllogisms:

I.
A. According to atheism, objective (public) argument is based on an errant presumption (that meaning and value is objective).
B. It is intellectually dishonest to knowingly argue based on errant presumptions.
C. Therefore, according to atheism, it is intellectually dishonest to engage in objective argumentation.

II.
A. According to atheism, it is intellectually dishonest to engage in objective argumentation.
B. The critique and profession of all the sciences and the humanities is the engagement of objective argumentation
C. Therefore, according to atheism, the critique and profession of all the sciences and the humanities is intellectually dishonest

…or even further simplified in a single syllogism:

A. Critical inquiries and objective argumentation presume objective meaning/value when such analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)
B. Objective meaning/value necessarily presumes an eternal, conscious Creator
C. Therefore, atheism is intellectually dishonest when critical inquiry or argumentative analysis takes place in public (that is, on the objective level)

[Deeds]

I read her blog - it's very good. [url="http://www.conversiondiary.com"]Conversion Diary[/url]

[Mary's Son]

I could post links to miracles that have been verified by independent secularists.

But, what is the point, my atheistic friends? Humans will dismiss what they want, and hold on to what they want...despite claims of "verifiability" and "scientific process."

Re-read the part of the article about humility. I too tried to reason my way into faith. It wasn't until I admitted that I couldn't that I was broke down enough to receive it.