Dialoguing With Agnostic Students

[Thy Geekdom Come]

This is the first draft because I'm exhausted and calling it a night:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

There must be a cause to all that exists. So there is either God, who caused the universe, or the universe itself as the supreme thing.

Something cannot cause itself to exist. If x does not exist, it can't do anything, so it certainly can't make itself.

Now, we observe that there is movement in this world. There is also change. For anything to move, it must be caused to move by something else ("an object at rest..."). Likewise, for anything to change, it must be acted upon by something else. Now, if the thing that caused this motion is itself moving, we must ask what made it move, and likewise, what made that cause to move. We have, in effect, a series of dominoes. Eventually, there must be a finger pushing the dominoes, that is, a mover that is itself unmoved (if it were moved, we'd be forced to ask what moved it, and therefore back at square one). It is therefore evident that anything in motion cannot be the first mover, since the first mover must be unmoved. The universe is in motion, expanding rapidly. It is also changing, its rapid expansion leading toward entropy and an eventual winding down of growth.

In recent years, a theory has been proposed that the universe is actually a multiverse -that little loops in the fabric of space-time and Einstein-Rosen Bridges connect parallel universes, all living out slight variations in quantum states from other universes. By analogy, we could speak of a very complex clock with many gears operating all in order together. The universe could be much more complex than we realize. As it stands, this is only conjecture. There is no empirical way to test the theory. Any probe sent into the heart of a black hole would be ripped apart by tidal forces, although time-dilation would prevent our seeing it move past the event horizon. The problem with this theory is not the science. The science is entirely plausible, although empirically unprovable. The problem is that the complex universe, this clock, still has to have been wound up. Who set the whole thing in motion? Even if our universe emptied out of the white end of a black hole from some other, larger universe, who started that universe or the one it formed from? Someone has to have started the whole process.

Recently Stephen Hawking, a brilliant theoretical physicist, recently suggested that the universe came from nothing. I have news for Dr. Hawking: the Catholic Church has always taught that the universe was created out of nothing (literally, "ex nihilo"). The real question is by whom was it created? We've already shown that something cannot create itself. The entire universe, which is all the physical stuff, including particles and energy, cannot have created itself, since before it existed, it wasn't around to create anything, much less itself. This means that the Creator of the universe is not physical (if He were, He would be part of this universe-in-motion and we'd get stuck looking for the domino-pushing finger again). So, the First Mover must be spiritual.

It is rather unfortunate that one brand of philosophy rising from the Enlightenment was empiricism. Empiricism states that I may only believe what can be proven by empirical science, that is, with instruments designed to measure. The problem with empiricism is that it specifically excludes some things from study. If something isn't physical or has no dimensions, it cannot be measured. If God indeed exists, and if He is spiritual and not physical, empirical science can't prove Him, can it? Nor can it disprove Him. "Well! That's awfully convenient, isn't it! You believe in something that by it's very nature you claim can't be disproven. Who's going to argue with that? Your self-supporting theory is false precisely because it's too convenient." Not so fast, I retort. If I accuse you of being a spy and you insist that you are not, I might reply, "that's exactly what a spy would say!" Now, that's pretty convenient. Nonetheless, it's not illogical. If you are a spy, that really is what you would say! Is denying that you're a spy proof that you're a spy? Absolutely not! Does it disprove it? Absolutely not! You really could be a spy. When I say God can't be disproven by science, does that alone make Him real? Of course not. Does it exclude the possibility that He is real? Nope. He could be real. There can be no evidence to the contrary.

Is it irrational for me to believe in God even without proof? Knowing what I mean by "God," I don't expect to have empirical proof. I believe in God because I choose to believe in Him. Belief in God isn't belief in something that's been proven wrong (that would be irrational), belief in God is belief in something beyond our reasoning, something super-rational, but not irrational.

The limit of science is the measurable, the empirical. When we begin dealing with spiritual realities, we move into metaphysics (literally, "beyond physics"). Dr. Hawking is a great scientist, but he is no philosopher.

Now the universe must have a First Mover, an Unmoved Mover. We've ruled out the universe itself, and therefore also anything physical. God must be spiritual. Since time is a dimension within the universe, God must be eternal, that is, outside of time. Now God made all beings. He set our being in motion. We are, as philosophers say, contingent beings. We rely on Him for our being. Earlier I said that God had to wind the clock of the universe (or multiverse). He could not simply have wound the clock and walked away (which the Deists claim). If God abandoned any of us, He would withdraw His being and we would cease to exist.

So God is spiritual, eternal, and Being Himself, that which is, which called everything else into being (set everything in motion). This is no surprise to Christians (or Jews). It was to Moses that God said, "I am who am" (Genesis 3:14). A thousand years before Greek philosophers figured out that God must be Being, Moses was preaching it to simple, uneducated slaves, now freed from their shackles and left wondering in the desert.

Seeing as God must be supremely beyond our understanding, incomprehensible to us, any religion that admits to being man-made must be false, since the truth about God cannot be known without God's help, without His Revelation. A religion that claims to be inspired by God at least admits that our human reason is insufficient to understand God and tries to preserve the truth. The true religion must be revealed.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

*blink*

[sixpence]

the last two paragraphs seemed a little abrupt, but the rest makes perfect sense to me!! The spy part would probably take a second read if someone had no idea what you were saying to begin with

[little_miss_late]

Hope it goes well for you. I have never really understood people who insist that the only things that exist are the things that can be measured with scientific instruments. That seems to me to be more of a leap of faith than a belief in God.

[Paddington]

Noice.

[Ziggamafu]

Arguments from causality in all their variations, while still reasonable, have lost a lot of their punch with the advance of science-based cosmogenesis. Basically, new theories postulate a sort of non-God god in the form of eternally generative forces that exist at the core of reality, perhaps, in pure act, having generated an infinite multiverse. I am no scientist, and I cannot explain nor defend these theories, but they seem to be gaining fast support in the scientific community. Just as I avoid teleological arguments because of evolutionary options, I now avoid arguments revolving around causality. That doesn't mean I think such arguments shouldn't be taught, just that they are extra steps at best and unnecessary distractions at worst. I do not mean to say that we should endorse any particular view within fields of science, only that I think the best dialogue with atheists (and agnostics are just atheists who refuse to admit it) is one that revolves around perceived transcendence, sidestepping rehearsed objections altogether.

This physical world known by our five physical senses could in actuality be an illusion (maybe we are all non-player characters in a videogame or maybe we're in the Matrix, etc.) but it is completely unreasonable to think so. Likewise, this spiritual world known by our three spiritual senses could in actuality be an illusion, but it is completely unreasonable to think so. Love, justice, beauty, goodness, freedom, and reason are all universal experiences. The interpretation, the data, may vary from culture to culture, but the perceived transcendence does not. We know meaning in this world, and meaning can only exist by means of eternal deliberation; a Source and Standard that may only be God Almighty. Otherwise, "meaning" is an absurd illusion of a meaningless evolution on a meaningless speck, the entire history of which is almost infinitely brief within the vast, irrational expanses of a meaningless universe. It is as unreasonable to assume that we are mere particles in motion as it is to assume that there is no difference between sense and nonsense, poetry and gibberish, love and chemical reactions, music and noise. We experience perceived transcendence with the same conviction and universality as perceived physicality.

Two absolutely required reads for this generation of apologists are [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/C-S-Lewiss-Dangerous-Idea-Argument/dp/0830827323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284731815&sr=1-1"]C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea[/url][/i] by Victor Reppert and [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/Recalcitrant-Imago-Dei-Persons-Naturalism/dp/0334042151/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284731882&sr=1-1"]The Recalcitrant Imageo Dei[/url][/i]by J.P. Moreland. The latter is, in my opinion, the greatest demonstration of God's existence currently in print (although I've heard good things about the [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1405176571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284731559&sr=8-1"]Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology[/url][/i] and the first chapter of [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284731612&sr=1-1"]New Proofs for the Existence of God[/url][/i]).

[Mr.Cat]

[b]Raphael[/b], perhaps you are approaching this the wrong way... faith is a free supernatural gift, it is nothing that we as humans can earn, create, amend, add, or subtract from ([i]if it were, it would be a human religion[/i]). It is not a product of the mind or hands, it is of the heart. Faith is something precious that is to be cherished and appreciated. It seems you are trying to take your theological opinions and turn them into pusedo-philosophy or pusedo-science.

The accent to the Christian faith, which includes belief in God, must be free. It seems like to me that your trying to find a way to force or coerce these students into your opinions and beliefs. We as Catholics accept religious liberty and freedom, which your students have, and you should respect them as individuals else they wont ever listen to you.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Mr Cat

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284759021' post='2174150']
[b]Raphael[/b], perhaps you are approaching this the wrong way... faith is a free supernatural gift, it is nothing that we as humans can earn, create, amend, add, or subtract from ([i]if it were, it would be a human religion[/i]). It is not a product of the mind or hands, it is of the heart. Faith is something precious that is to be cherished and appreciated. It seems you are trying to take your theological opinions and turn them into pusedo-philosophy or pusedo-science.

The accent to the Christian faith, which includes belief in God, must be free. It seems like to me that your trying to find a way to force or coerce these students into your opinions and beliefs. We as Catholics accept religious liberty and freedom, which your students have, and you should respect them as individuals else they wont ever listen to you.
[/quote]


While faith is absolutely and completely a free supernatural gift, which like you say, we cannot earn... We [i]can[/i] remove stumbling blocks on our end to [i]receiving[/i] that gift. One of those stumbling blocks might be a of the intellect. We can come to know the existence of God as first cause through reason alone. This assent of the intellect prepares one to receive the gift of faith.

Here is what St. Thomas has to say in [i]De praedestinatione sanctorum[/i]

"Three things lead us to believe in Christ: First, natural reason;... secondly, the testimony of the law and the prophets;... thirdly, the preaching of the Apostles; but when thus led we have reached belief; then we can say that we believe, [b]not for any of the preceding motives, but solely because of the very truth of God... to which we adhere firmly under the influence of an infused light;[/b] because faith has certitude from light divinely infused."

So, I think it is a very commendable act to attempt to engage in rational argument. There is much we can learn about God through our intellect alone. But it is only through the free gift of grace that we participate in the intimate life of the Holy Trinity and are able to say, "I believe."

[Mr.Cat]

[url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-thomas-aquinas/"][b]Saint Thomas Aquinas[/b][/url] in his "Summa Theologica" also argues that the existence of God is not self-evident, there is no evidence, but somehow demonstrable in reason sufficient for faith.

Philosophy and science tends to be deductive, while theology and religion tends to be inductive. Meaning an explanation of how we can reconcile our faith to reason, our religion to science, or clarity to that same faith can be helpful.

But I think if we pretend that we can somehow prove the existence of God or establish our religious beliefs as some kind of empirical knowledge or facts is deceptive. I also think there is an overly intellectualization of the faith, where people turn the faith into an exercise in reason or words, which if you ask me isn't the Divine Catholic faith.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Mr Cat

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284765735' post='2174161']
[url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-thomas-aquinas/"][b]Saint Thomas Aquinas[/b][/url] in his "Summa Theologica" also argues that the existence of God is not self-evident, there is no evidence, but somehow demonstrable in reason sufficient for faith.

Philosophy and science tends to be deductive, while theology and religion tends to be inductive. Meaning an explanation of how we can reconcile our faith to reason, our religion to science, or clarity to that same faith can be helpful.

But I think if we pretend that we can somehow prove the existence of God or establish our religious beliefs as some kind of empirical knowledge or facts is deceptive. I also think there is an overly intellectualization of the faith, where people turn the faith into an exercise in reason or words, which if you ask me isn't the Divine Catholic faith.
[/quote]

You are correct in saying that Thomas teaches that the existence of God is not self-evident, but he also teaches that the existence of God can be demonstrated. He calls this a "preamble" to articles of faith. ST I-I, Q. 2, A. 2.

Remember that faith is the perfection of the intellect. Grace does not destroy nature, but [i]perfects[/i] it. That being said, our Tradition teaches us that we can, in fact, prove the existence of God as first cause. Just take a look at St. Thomas' 'Five Proofs', ST I-I, Q 2, A. 3. Or St. Anselm's 'Ontological Proof'. But the gift of infused faith... it surpasses all rational knowledge of God, for sure!! It is the supernatural intimacy of the life of the Holy Trinity revealed to us!! Given to us as a participation [i]in that very life[/i]!! It is awesome beyond compare. The life of one with this gift of faith brings greater glory to God than all of the natural created world combined. The knowledge given in faith is greater than that known by the angels!!

So, I definitely understand where you're coming from-- the life of faith is absolutely more superior than we can ever grasp.

But (and I'm revealing my bias here, because I'm such a lover of philosophy), I think that the rational component is super important. God made us in His image and likeness, which means that we are likened to Him because of the gift of our will and our intellect. So, exercising both of those is most human. Even in the context of faith. Again, faith does not destroy the intellect, but perfects it.

I'm of the opinion that the Greek philosophers discovered a LOT of truth about the created world and about God through their use of reason. And I'm also of the opinion that this rational foundation has helped Christian thinkers to understand more completely the faith revealed to us in Jesus Christ. It gave us a language to talk about the faith. And, to be honest, these philosophical principles discovered by the Greek philosophers-- they're [i]everywhere[/i] in the Christian writers. St. Thomas is a given, but even St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who refused entry of the philosophers into his library (even though he himself had read many of them), is filled with philosophical principles which aid our understanding of faith (both his [i]On Grace and Free Will[/i] and [i]On Loving God[/i] are examples of this). You look at any of the Fathers of the Church and you will see an abundance of philosophy. In fact, I've once heard it said that we study philosophy in order to understand the Church Fathers; we study the Church Fathers in order to understand Scripture; and we study Scripture in order to know and love God.

With all of that being said, I want to be clear that I'm with you, Mr. Cat, in that I don't like seeing the faith put forth as some sort of natural religion. It's not that. I am very leery of attempts to reduce the higher into the lower, of making the faith something of a material conception. I don't think that making rational arguments does that, so long as there is a proper understanding of grace and the infused virtue of faith. Unfortunately, many have lost the understanding of the reality of grace.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1284765225' post='2174160']

Here is what St. Thomas has to say in [i]De praedestinatione sanctorum[/i]

"Three things lead us to believe in Christ: First, natural reason;... secondly, the testimony of the law and the prophets;... thirdly, the preaching of the Apostles; but when thus led we have reached belief; then we can say that we believe, [b]not for any of the preceding motives, but solely because of the very truth of God... to which we adhere firmly under the influence of an infused light;[/b] because faith has certitude from light divinely infused."
[/quote]


Hey,

Do you have the full quote from Thomas? I've actually tried to find a lot of this stuff before but to no avail. I'd be interested in what he has to say about why natural reason, testimony of the law and prophets and teaching of the apostles that leads one to the conclusion that the Catholic faith is true.

[tinytherese]

I suggest incorporating JP 2's Fides et Ratio. I've only read a little of this book from CR Publications, but Catholicism & Reason so far has been a decent read. As far as evidence for Christ's existence on earth from so many perspectives such as historically, archaeologically, psychologically etc. I've found The Case for Christ to be a fascinating book.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Mr. Cat, TheresaBenedicta is correct. The Church is very clear on the need to teach the faith and argue for it, incorporating reason, logical arguments, beauty, culture, etc. Yes, faith is a gift, but it is my job to spread that gift as far as possible. I cannot give faith, but I can help remove obstacles in my students, whom God wills to be saved. I can do so by having a reasonable and charitable dialogue with them. It would be, quite frankly, a sort of calvinistic gnostic donatism for me to insist that I simply should not do this, but should wait for God to give them the gift. God offers the gift to all, but He offers through us, His instruments.

Zigg, while I am painfully aware of science's recent and foolhardy attempts to ingress upon metaphysics, I must insist that causality is the best argument. Hawking and his ilk may claim that the universe/multiverse could bring itself into existence, but we know this is nonsense and something empirical science could never demonstrate, no simply because it is impossible, but because it is empirically untenable. Causality is a valid answer, whether or not the pride of empiricists has blinded them. I am attempting to remove the blinders by pointing out that something that doesn't exist can't bring anything (much less itself) into existence. So far, they have agreed. I even got one of them to say that the universe was brought into existence by some sort of eternal truth, from which the laws of physics must derive. I told him he's right, but that I believe that truth is a person (or three Persons). So far, making decent headway. The difficulty is bringing down they empiricism and scientism. Empiricism is an inherently prideful, arrogant, and blind system of believe ("I'm so brilliant and my scientific instruments so perfect that if I can't prove something, it simply must not exist"). Our students today have also been brought up to believe in empiricism in their science classes, which is dreadful. They are oblivious to the fact that if something spiritual does exist, their instruments won't be able to prove it. They cannot prove the spiritual, but they equally cannot disprove it.

[Mr.Cat]

Technically, I am not disagreeing with TeresaBenedicta as much as I am disagreeing with you. I never suggested people should never try to explain their faith or religion, in fact I directly implied the opposite. But the whole approach your taking, it seems like you are insistent that if people could see it from YOUR way that clearly they could believe like you do; that might not be the case, perhaps you should consider that if you ever took the time to examine YOUR way it might not be as perfect as you imagine. If this is a religious formation class of some kind introducing different writings of Church Doctors and Catholic Theologians is appropriate, but to merely dictate your opinions because you can, inappropriate.

If you really think you are doing the work of salvation in preparing this presentation, to save them from opinions that are not your own, your welcome to. But in my opinion you are just going to be pushing them farther away giving them the impressions that I gave before. You can't prove to them your right, but your trying anyways. If you really want to remove obstacles for your students perhaps you should let your students come to you, rather than the other way around.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284826088' post='2174254']
Technically, I am not disagreeing with TeresaBenedicta as much as I am disagreeing with you. I never suggested people should never try to explain their faith or religion, in fact I directly implied the opposite. But the whole approach your taking, it seems like you are insistent that if people could see it from YOUR way that clearly they could believe like you do; that might not be the case, perhaps you should consider that if you ever took the time to examine YOUR way it might not be as perfect as you imagine. If this is a religious formation class of some kind introducing different writings of Church Doctors and Catholic Theologians is appropriate, but to merely dictate your opinions because you can, inappropriate.

If you really think you are doing the work of salvation in preparing this presentation, to save them from opinions that are not your own, your welcome to. But in my opinion you are just going to be pushing them farther away giving them the impressions that I gave before. You can't prove to them your right, but your trying anyways. If you really want to remove obstacles for your students perhaps you should let your students come to you, rather than the other way around.
[/quote]

Mr. Cat, I am a trained, degreed, and professional catechist. As such, I am not dictating my own opinions, but using time-tested theological arguments. Does that mean I am excluding other arguments? No. Does it mean I'm saying that the cosmological argument is a matter of dogma? No. However, for me to exclude the argument out of some concern that a theological proof used by the Church for centuries is simply "my inappropriate opinion" would be silly. Catechesi Tradendae commands me to teach as Christ would teach, such that my teaching is not my own. The Church and her tradition represent Christ. The cosmological argument is a common and favored argument in the Church's tradition (it's not "my way," it is the Church's way, or one among many). By using it, I am doing nothing other than what the Church instructs me to do as a catechist.

Your second paragraph, I'm afraid, betrays your jumping to conclusions. I never once said that I was initiating this dialogue. The students came to me, privately, outside of class, to dialogue about this subject. They have been quite charitable and we have been having a fruitful discussion. They are presenting their views and I am responding with the views and arguments of the Church.

Being a catechist is different from being a theology professor. I do not simply present the "opinions" of Church Fathers, nor am I charged with giving them a broad theological discourse on various arguments and treatises. My job is to present them with the Gospel toward their conversion and to enter into a dialogue between the Gospel and them. I take their thoughts, concerns, etc., and respond in the way of Christ, which is the way of the Church. I am not concerned that they may have opinions other than my own; I am concerned that they have opinions (agnosticism) contradictory to the Gospel. If you think agnosticism is compatible with the Gospel, I suppose you would be careful not to propose your own opinion of theism in response to theirs, but this is not a matter of two differing opinions both acceptable in light of the Gospel, this is a matter of one theological opinion opposed to the Gospel.

The theological tradition of the Church has given me the cosmological argument to use in dialogue with confused young people who have been lied to by empiricism. I am doing that. If you have some positive contribution (i.e. other arguments aside from cosmological), then post it. If you're here to judge my objectives (which are from the Church) or my means (also from the Church), then you are not helping.

I think it's sad that you think I'm simply trying to push my opinions when faith in God as Creator is central to our faith. How is showing (through one of many means) that God is the Creator a matter of my opinion?