Jennifer Fulwiler comments here on the futility of reasoning with atheists. It's not because atheists are unreasonable or that they are dumb or that they are incapable of rational debate. It's because they are convinced of one underlying assumption which they are not allowed to question: that there is no God. She points out how many atheists' self identity is also wrapped up in this basic assumption, so to challenge this negative assumption is to challenge the foundations and therefore everything.
The similarity between this and madness is not lost on me. I enjoy discussing mental health issues with my friend Dr Richard, and late into the night he was explaining to me how those who are schizophrenic are not amenable to counseling (although once they are taking their meds counseling will help them cope) The root problem with schizophrenia is that the person who is suffering is experiencing a perception of reality that is incorrect, but which is coming to them through the channels of perception which they must trust, for those channels of perception communicate reality to them.
So, for example, let's say I am having hallucinations of a six foot rabbit named Harvey who talks to me. The part of the brain that normally receives information from the eyes and the ears has malfunctioned in some way and I really do, honestly 'see' and 'hear' a six foot rabbit named Harvey. That no one else can see it is their problem. For me this is reality for it has come to me through all the sense that I must trust for they cannot lie to me.
Apparently you can't reason a schizophrenic out of his belief. What he is seeing and hearing is 'real' to him. This is not to call all atheists schizophrenic, but the analogy is there--because in a similar way you cannot reason him out of his seemingly rock solid perception of reality: that there is no God.
The only thing that can change a schizophrenic is something that alters the chemicals in his brain back to the proper function again. Similarly, the only thing that can convert an atheist (or an agnostic or an unbeliever of any kind) is the divine light--revelation--grace--a supernatural gift which opens blind eyes.
Now what really teases me is that the same thing can be said about a theist who has never really examined their belief system. They too have accepted a rock solid basic assumption and have never questioned it. What they need, as we all need is a shock to the system and an infusion of grace which takes their theism out of the comfort zone into the reality zone. This is what we call conversion.
The sad, sad problem is that even when we are given a huge infusion of grace and revelation we too often keep our eyes and hearts clamped closed as tight as can be, for we would rather have the darkness we know than the enlightenment we do not know. We would rather have the sickness we know than the healing we do not know. We would rather have the comfortable religion we know than the subversive power of the Holy Spirit we don't know.
Conversion requires courage. To be truly converted we have to launch out into the unknown. We have to leave Egypt and head into the wilderness. We have to step out of the boat and do some wave walking.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, but consider the following:
ReplyDelete...the futility of reasoning with theists. It's not because theists are unreasonable or that they are dumb or that they are incapable of rational debate. It's because they are convinced of one underlying assumption which they are not allowed to question: that there is a God. She points out how many theists' self identity is also wrapped up in this basic assumption, so to challenge this negative assumption is to challenge the foundations and therefore everything.
You're right, Fr. L. in regard to the courage it takes to change. As a convert to the Catholic faith, I remember that heart stopping moment when I considered the previously unfathomable - what if I am wrong and evangelicalism isn't the only way.
ReplyDeleteShan, you make a good point. It was something I thought of while writing, but was doing a quick blog post and didn't have time to edit. I have now re written slightly to show that the smug or non thinking theist is in the same sort of trap.
ReplyDeleteShan, what you say might be true for comfortable theists or theists who have not converted or reverted, but it is not true otherwise. Converts from agnosticism/atheism have asked the question. People who have suffered constantly face this question. Mother Teresa, Saint Teresa de Avila, John of the Cross, and countless others have asked the question and have had their faith strengthened because of that inquiry.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who was an agnostic and practical atheist (if God existed, he was irrelevant) I can say that I was not afraid of asking the question, but "I had better things to do than navel gazing". Not all agnostics/atheists fit the description provided by Jennifer Fulwiler. You could say, I was a comfortable agnostic/atheist. What got me out of my comfort zone was realizing that agnosticism/atheists is fundamentally inconsistent. I turned the skepticism I had for religion onto my own beliefs and was dismayed. Eventually, I discovered that there really is only one consistent faith, and with Peter in John 6:68 I can honestly say there are no other choices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Shan
ReplyDeleteSure the Argument could be reversed, of course.
The point is that SOME (not all) atheist have one delusion further:
they believe that they 'do not believe anything and that everything they claim is based upon pure rationality and logic'...
... and that is NOT the case... a honest and smart enough atheist would say that.
This is also the critique of E. Feser in his 'The Last Superstition' where he criticizes the 'new atheism' movement... and his book has received some favorable critique even by non-believers (since they agree that some forms of atheism are just silly).
Now, of course there are people who go about their lives in 'blind faith', but there are also many believers that DO think about their faith rationally or that became believers because of rational thinking.
NATURALLY there are NO true 'free thinkers'... in the end we are all conditioned by some basic assumption(**) we take for granted without thinking about them.
So the 'new atheists' (which I hope for atheists themselves are just a very loud minority of the atheist group) lie to themselves (probably without even knowing) when they think themselves purely rational.
Even excessive rationalism an skepticism, lead to absurdities in the end.
I agree with Shan.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'd go a step further. The atheist is not the one seeing a giant invisible rabbit and assuming everyone else is wrong. With the bipolar example given, there is no evidence for the giant rabbit, the sufferer assumes the rabbit is real but it is only imaginary. God, for which there is no evidence, is the giant rabbit but religions make groundless and unwarranted assumptions for it based merely in philosophical conjecture. To be a theist one must choose to assume a god but an atheist assumes nothing.
It's not the atheist who is pretending in giant rabbits!
As an extension to my comment feel free to read my post "Your Point Is Not Valid".
Lastly I find it astounding that you did not have an atheist epiphany as you were writing this post Fr Longenecker; you have put together such a clear picture of theism, I wish I'd written it myself(with the changes shan identified).
Thanks for an enjoyable, if misguided, read.
Peace.
@CrispySea
@Crispy Sea
ReplyDeleteIf Harvey the Rabbit really is there, then seeing him is no delusion, simerly If God really is there then beliving in him is no delusion.
If a man dressed as a rabbit really is tweaking his sister's nose then she is under no compulsion to deny this belief to the man who says that she is really in the matrix (now complex rational arguments can be made to show that she is not in the matrix but thats not the point).
Simerly the average Catholic Nun to whom Jesus appears is under no duress to demonstrate to the skeptic that he has appeared to her, admitedly complex philosophical and historical reasons can be given to show the skeptic that God exists and that Jesus really walked out of that tomb on Easter Sunday morning but she is not required to know them.
@Just another mad Catholic
ReplyDeleteThe first person to mention a god could not have said "I do not think there is a god" because the response to that statement would have been "Eh? What do you mean; what's a god?"
"I do not think there is a god" is a statement which is ONLY valid in reply to another's suggestion that there is one, so the first person to mention a god must have been the person making the suggestion "I Believe there's a god".
Until those making the suggestion prove their claim that an invisible rabbit exists as more than a mere philosophical suggestion, it remains merely a suggestion.
Whilst it remains merely suggestion, any institution proclaiming rules one must follow to evade the wrath of the suggestion, is a building built on intangible and inconsequential sand.
<>
ReplyDeleteAh, but doesn't an atheist assume EVERYTHING...like all that exists just always existed or began to exist without an intelligence involved in its creation. What are the odds?
And surely an atheist believes in love, courage, kindness, etc., -- qualities which can be reflected in deeds, but are unseen standing alone.
A theist sees God as necessary for creation, but one who truly prays begins to experience him on a personal level..
I started out believing, but now I know. It is possible to know God with a certainty beyond faith.
No, this atheist doesn't assume everything, this atheist assumes nothing. Assumptions about the creation of the universe are only required if one has an axe to grind (want to believe there's a god).
ReplyDeleteAs atheist I am uninterested as to the actual physics of the start of the universe because I don't need to find a reason to justify a fable.
That humans have a soul is only a misconception and without a soul what use is an after life?
my latest blog Soul Trapped Spirit explains better.
I can see where you’re coming from, Crispy Sea.
ReplyDeleteIf I were an atheist, debating about God would be the height of craziness, and that’s why I’m so confused why the ‘New Atheists’ go on as they do. Or, are they not ‘True Atheists’?
After all, would a sane individual waste so much time obsessively trying to prove ‘the non-existence of nothing’ so vitriolically, like nearly all the ‘atheists’ I know?
In the same way, Darwinism needs to be preached because it’s as speculative as religion. Gravity doesn’t, because its not. In short, Darwinism is an assumption about the world.
For a Christian to post on atheist blogs is consistent with their mission. But an atheist has no mission in that sense, because they don’t need to prove the non-existence of nothing, so their presence in religious blogs is either a) contrary to their belief, or b) they actually have another agenda (or c) they’re mad).
I would argue that actually, the ‘atheist’ in the religious blog has little concern about the existence of God, but has another agenda: to quash the external voice that tells them what they know in their heart-of-hearts (conscience): that they are not all they’re cracked up to be.
The worst thing is how they go about silencing that voice: even in Gulags and Concentration camps, if they have the chance.
That is, ‘atheist’ in the sense above, is merely code for ‘wanton hedonist’ who wants his cake, and the privilege of eating it, without any prick of conscience.
The thing is, we’re all like that! It’s just the Christian is one who’s learning not to believe in their own hype, and the best textbook for learning it is the Gospel, and the best school, the Catholic Church.
However, that gets me round to...Why post here, Crispy Sea? Trying to convert us, eh? :)
I post wherever I find mistruths or half truths. There are enough lies and fake in this world.
ReplyDeleteThis blog was posted not by a psychologist or properly accredited neuroscientist but by an unqualified priest making wild accusations about atheists which are just wrong; as I posted earlier the invisible rabbit example compares far more honestly with the god concept of the religious.
"gulags and concentration camps" sounds a lot like a subtle "reductio ad Hitlerum". Just a couple of points on this, I believe there is a story in your fable where your god arbitrarily slaughtered every living thing on earth. Try counting how many lives human, animal, insect, bacteria that comes to, before accusing atheists of being mass murderers. Also, Hitler was a good Catholic. Mein Kampf clearly displays that Hitler's persecution of Jews was, in his opinion, 'doing gods work', and much of the Nazi army marched with "God is with us" imprinted on their belt buckles.
"Evolution is an assumption" - No longer; since the DNA evidence confirms the vast and highly detailed fossil record there is no longer any question about it. Even the last two popes have accepted it as fact (though there acceptance probably means more to you than me). Sounds to me like you are confusing or conflating the meanings of Hypothesis and Theory; they are not the same. Also my atheism was not brought about by hearing of evolution, I was atheist before.
"The best school is the Catholic Church" - Please, the Catholic Church, supporter of the Nazis, protector and enabler of paedophiles, the cause of countless deaths because of their anti condom stance, and purveyors of one of the most supremacist and hateful books ever written.
"Trying to convert us, eh?" - Yes of course but not because I can hear external, or internal, voices. I know in brain that there is know god. You think there is because you are thinking with your heart, an organ distinctly unsuited to the task.
The real reason I comment on post like this is because your, and all other, supremacist authoritarian doctrines are the bane of human progress and peace.
I and the new atheists 'go on' as we do because of the massive Cost of Faith I feel I'd be failing humankind if I were to not make it my mission to at least attempt to open peoples eyes to the lies. Whilst I don’t see us (atheists) as a collective, group or movement, I assume that none of us would see this as 'wasting time'.
Oops. Extracts foot. Assumed I was talking to a rational atheist for once. :)
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I always enjoy the atheist ‘rhetorical flourish’ – the way they write as if every sentence ends with a knock-down QED, rather than a full stop – so thanks for the rant, but I would check some of your facts in future to prevent further embarrassment.
I suggest you read Michael Shermer’s, Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/09/rational-atheism/
It’s a great piece about what an atheist argument should look like, instead of being a parody of itself.
What’s even funnier, is that Michael Shermer’s never used it himself. Nothing like preaching what you don’t practice. :)
Unfortunately, I realised as soon as I’d clicked on ‘Publish’ I forgot option d), a troll.
Anyway. Tootle-pip, and God Bless, Crispy.
Well at least you've got the chance of speaking with a rational atheist, I've yet to encounter a rational theist.
ReplyDeleteGlad you 'enjoy' the 'flourish', I unfortunately cannot reciprocate as I've yet to find any aspect of religion or its purveyors that I can describe as ‘enjoyable’.
What's even funnier (in a sad, 'OMG, we are so doomed' sort of way) is that you seem incapable of accepting that every aspect of my last comment is factually true. That's okay, this is what I've come to expect from the spiritually intoxicated; your denial of reality is merely indicative of the doctrine to which you forlornly cling.
So, not going to respond to any of the counterpoints I raised? Just screaming 'TROLL' and run is your considered oppinion? Again, all too regularly, the moment uncomfortable reality appears this is the religious response.
What's a half-truth? It's a logical impossibility, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSo, 'psychologists' and 'properly accredited neuroscientists' aren't your 'priests'?
What makes them accredited? The fact the accreditors agree with them? That's nepotism, not science - a frequent feature of what poses as 'science' today.
Intelligent atheists consider neuroscience junk science:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/essays/article/11088
Hitler was a Catholic. So what? No doubt you can tell me which informal fallacy that is, because it is one. :)
...and atheists go round with fish badges with feet... So? (In fact, it's really sad.)
All science is provisional because it's inductive. Currently, the speed of light is coming into question owing to the latest findings of CERN's hadron collider.
Also, the philosophy of science points out that the results of science are the product of the medium through which they're measured. i.e., relative. So, in a sense, scientists get the result they want, and progress normally comes from the mistakes or anomalies. (Read, George Polya's How to Solve It, and Bernard Lonergan's book, Insight: A Study in Human Understanding on how insights are obtained, and the biases that often surround them).
I don't have a problem with Evolution - nor do I believe the earth was made in 6 days or it is flat: in case you were thinking of bringing those up.
"Please, the Catholic Church, supporter of the Nazis, protector and enabler of paedophiles, the cause of countless deaths because of their anti condom stance, and purveyors of one of the most supremacist and hateful books ever written."
- Hmmmm. for a man who probably claims to work from 'facts alone', you seem to rely on the media a lot.
"I know in brain that there is know god."
- I think you mean 'no', but you need to provide evidence, not absence of of it. I've never been to Australia, but I know it exists based on other people's experience - which is reliable.
The idea we use our 'heart to think' is drivel. Show me the scientific evidence that hearts think. There isn't any - it's just more ranting.
"The real reason I comment on post like this is because your, and all other, supremacist authoritarian doctrines are the bane of human progress and peace."
Well, it's an opinion, but without evidence, I conclude it's another rant. If you don't think science is supremacist and authoritarian in some quarters, too, then what was blue touch-paper that ignited the French Revolution all about?
"I and the new atheists 'go on' as we do because of the massive Cost of Faith I feel I'd be failing humankind if I were to not make it my mission to at least attempt to open peoples eyes to the lies."
- Most of my fundamentalist acquaintances say the same with the same sort of evidence, except against atheism, so what's your point? You're saying nothing unique, credible, or more persuasive than my nutty fundie acquaintances.
"Whilst I don’t see us (atheists) as a collective, group or movement, I assume that none of us would see this as 'wasting time'."
- Again, transpose the word 'atheist' with 'Evangelical', and you've got the definition of Protestantism.
I think I've addressed every point - except probably not to your satisfaction, no doubt. :)
Just to cover myself:
ReplyDeleteIf you argue the cause of the French Revolution was political under the guise of reason and science, then I'd suggest you need to think carefully about whether 'religious' wars and other acts of aggression 'in the name of religion' are of the same type...
“Psychologists/Neuroscientists are your priests” Lol, both of these have expertise in their fields; that’s all. I’d give greater consideration to their opinions about the human brain than I would to that of a car mechanic, carpenter or priest.
ReplyDelete“Hitler was a Catholic. So what?” – So, he and his army believed they marched with your god at their side. It’s really sad that the Bible was written so badly that they could think such. It is a cost of faith which is largely ignored by the faithful. I was merely answering your subtle fallacious suggestion that atheists perpetrate more atrocities.
“So, in a sense, scientists get the result they want, and progress normally comes from the mistakes or anomalies.” One scientist working alone may get the result he wants, but a million scientists all vying for kudos, checking to disprove each others work? Please, do you have any idea how perfect a conspiracy would need to be for the scientific facts we have to be merely ‘personal wish’? Do you think that in the height of the cold war, if Russia or China could have shown some of the USA’s scientific facts wrong they would have chosen to not?
"I don't have a problem with Evolution" - This doesn't exactly match with your earlier opinion.
Seems somewhat duplicitous to suggest you do have a problem with it "Darwinism is an assumption about the world" if you accept it.
True, Science is not immutable. I know it's confusing for those who like rules set in stone but of course scientific data is refined as 'we' become more precise in our construction of measuring devices and methods. Science is about understanding reality regardless of personal wish, want or agenda.
Science delivers a measured view of reality, the speed of light is still the speed of light; that CERN may have discovered something faster doesn’t change its speed. Not all facts are changed when science refines its comprehensions.
Your bible is the book that gave birth to the myth of your god and his six day creation but, as you suggested, Genesis is utterly wrong, so, as you have jettisoned that component of your ‘immutable’ book, what criteria are you using to decide that your book’s suggestion of a god is not equally fallacious?
"you seem to rely on the media a lot". Not exactly a categorical denial of the points I raised, more of a deflection and a somewhat dishonest accusation. As none of us were ‘on the spot’ for every event in history we must all rely on reports. Could I just point out that the reports to which I refer are properly researched and cited, you are arguing the case for your god based on goat herders’ camp-fire tales! So, was your point that every newspaper and media outlet on earth is in a conspiracy against the RCC? Does that not seem like a wild self- delusion? Especially given that the RCC admits 1 priest in every 25 is Paedophile. (Millions of Clouds - No Silver Lining)
You ask "What's a half-truth?" and then go on to display all of your favourites. “Except probably not to your satisfaction.” Nice to see that, on some level, you are aware that you are using them. :P
I'm fundamentally committed to freeing humanity from tyrannical magical thinking. Sounding like a ‘Fundie’ is a vocational hazard. I’m sure you’ll agree it’s the content of the message that matters, religious fundamentalists are promoting a system of mental governance by an unsubstantiated authoritarian despot. As I am in favour of personal liberty and democracy, I am active against such. If they were not preaching and teaching, I’d not need to be.
Finally, I stand on only two linked facts.
1. The notion that Humans have a 'soul' is merely an ancient assumption, a primitive misjudgement as to what animates the body.
2. All religious dogma which promotes post-mortem existence and gods is grounded in and fuelled by that never substantiated misjudgement.
Hi, I'm not going to reply further, so you can believe I'm backing out and you've won. :)
ReplyDeleteAtheists, like some Christians, focus everything on epistemology - on 'facts' and 'belief'.
Catholics, on the other hand, stress the primacy of metaphysics. We take epistemology very seriously, but that it requires a sound metaphysics as a foundation before we even begin.
Science is very useful, but not when it's merely an ideology (scientism), and I rarely find science in discussions, only scientism.
Anyone can cherry-pick 'facts' to suit their worldview.
I've just thought of a great name for it as we have something similar in Catholicism: I think I'll call it "Cafeteria Atheism" in future.
Thanks for the insight, Crispy!
"so you can believe I'm backing out and you've won" Thanks, I'll consider it.
ReplyDelete"Anyone can cherry-pick 'facts' to suit their worldview." Only the intellectual dishonest do this. I am honest; it's why I am atheist.
Great, Cafeteria Atheism, whatever you call it, it's still the only honest position.
This has just been posted, Crispy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0396.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317800189&sr=8-1
If you read anything which doesn't align with your prejudices with an open mind, it looks good.
From what I can gather from the article, it appears Tallis is promoting a non-natural agent as a cause for human conscience. This places him squarely in the "I want to believe in magic" camp. If Tallis' book suggests, as the partisan article seems to be implying, his musings are no more than wishful whimsy.
ReplyDeleteUntil there's evidence to suggest there's something more than the bio-chemical/bio-electric that's all we may honestly assume.