Why I Am No Longer An Atheist

[Nihil Obstat]

At no point does any Catholicism nor Christianity in general state that intelligence is a requirement.
 

 

Intelligence per se, perhaps not, but reason, rationality, actually yes.

 

Fides et Ratio

 

 

1. In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

2. The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: thediakonia of the truth.(1) This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth; (2) and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12).

 

[theculturewarrior]

That's not a good path to take because what is considered "good" is usually things that preserve survival, and vice versa with 
"evil." It is very reductionist to think of it that way, but there is no need for a deity for that system to work. 

 

 

If I was going to play the devil's advocate, I would say that Christians describe morality on their own terms.  So naturally we would believe that lacking faith in Christ is an obstacle to human goodness, because we decide what good and evil is.

 

Some of my favorite people are atheists and agnostics.  It is consistent with my faith in God that they are very capable of living moral, compassionate lives.  I believe this as a matter of Church doctrine.

[stevil]

I would argue that lack of belief takes a bit of faith too. To look at a work of art and say that there was no artist who created it takes a bit of faith. To go even further and say that the art was created by a one in a million chance of specific things lining up in a perfect way takes even more faith.

What about claiming “I don’t know how that art was created”
Does that take faith?
Most atheists fit in the IDK basket.

[stevil]

Intelligence per se, perhaps not, but reason, rationality, actually yes.

The problem with reason and rationality is that it has no meaning of itself.

It must be seeded with a goal or set of a priori.

e.g. a humanistic viewpoint, do no harm to other people.
You could then go off and come up with some rules and behaviours for members of society that could maximise the potential of attaining this goal.

Maybe you decide to extend this to “do no harm to other conscious intelligent beings” or simply “do no harm to any animal”.

For the religious it is to follow scripture, to serve and obey as directed.

For many whom believe in morality it is to be a moral agent, to act morally and prevent/punish immoral acts.

For me it is to do what is ultimately in my best interests.

Anyone can claim to come from the side of reason and rationality.
It does not distinguish theist from atheist.

[Fidei Defensor]

The problem with reason and rationality is that it has no meaning of itself.

It must be seeded with a goal or set of a priori.

e.g. a humanistic viewpoint, do no harm to other people.
You could then go off and come up with some rules and behaviours for members of society that could maximise the potential of attaining this goal.

Maybe you decide to extend this to “do no harm to other conscious intelligent beings” or simply “do no harm to any animal”.

For the religious it is to follow scripture, to serve and obey as directed.

For many whom believe in morality it is to be a moral agent, to act morally and prevent/punish immoral acts.

For me it is to do what is ultimately in my best interests.

Anyone can claim to come from the side of reason and rationality.
It does not distinguish theist from atheist.

 

Whether I believe in a God or not, my morality flows from my desire to always do that which brings goodness — whether that be happiness or convenience. If God exists, I can tie this desire as an outflow of His love. If he doesn't, it is still an act of love on my part. Morality doesn't depend on God but rather is deepened by his existence. However, it is not extinguished if there isn't a God.

[Nihil Obstat]

The problem with reason and rationality is that it has no meaning of itself.

It must be seeded with a goal or set of a priori.

e.g. a humanistic viewpoint, do no harm to other people.
You could then go off and come up with some rules and behaviours for members of society that could maximise the potential of attaining this goal.

Maybe you decide to extend this to “do no harm to other conscious intelligent beings” or simply “do no harm to any animal”.

For the religious it is to follow scripture, to serve and obey as directed.

For many whom believe in morality it is to be a moral agent, to act morally and prevent/punish immoral acts.

For me it is to do what is ultimately in my best interests.

Anyone can claim to come from the side of reason and rationality.
It does not distinguish theist from atheist.

 

Is that not part and parcel with your somewhat idiosyncratic amoralist view? Many atheists, I might venture to guess the majority, would not agree that reason and rationality are inherently meaningless concepts.

[theculturewarrior]

A few things.

 

[quote]At no point does any Catholicism nor Christianity in general state that intelligence is a requirement.[/quote]

 

Intelligence is a requirement, because intelligence is a fundamental part of being human.  Every human being possesses intelligence, and being human at present is a requirement for being a Christian.  That is not what I mean by the term intellectual.  I am an intellectual because I enjoy ideas.  Intellectual history is the history of ideas.  I believe that I have demonstrated that Christianity has an intellectual foundation with currency and credibility in today's intellectual economy.
 

Second:

 

[quote]
The claim to god is unclear and unfalsifiable. There is nothing currently presented within the definition of god (and all that it entails) that is observable, measurable or testable.[/quote]

 

I agree that the existence of God is unclear and unfalsifiable.  I think that I have acknowledged that from the beginning and have made a case for theism.

 

Third:

 

[quote]
The religious claim that god created everything, the scientists show how planets and stars formed (without need for a god), they say it is based on the laws governing existence and how it determines the behaviour of energy and matter.
The religious claim that god created the laws and created energy and matter.
The scientists say how quantum fluctuations may have created energy and matter.
The religious claim that god created the quantum vacuum which defines quantum fluctuations.

[/quote]

 

Atheism is not a requirement to be a scientist.  Science does not endorse atheism or Christianity.  It is not relevant to what science intends to do.  There are many very prominent theistic scientists who would take exception to this.

 

 

And finally:

 

Intelligence has nothing to do with belief. Many people chose to believe regardless of the lack of evidence. In fact belief requires a lack of evidence, otherwise it would be fact.

 

Belief does require intelligence.  Your statement misunderstands what intelligence actually is.  And to your last point, I think that I have successfully demonstrated that we lack evidence whether we believe or not.  Science is among other things the search for evidence, which logically begins with a lack of evidence.  We are fundamentally and inescapably ignorant creatures, and there is no end to that in sight.

Edited December 13, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[stevil]

I might venture to guess the majority, would not agree that reason and rationality are inherently meaningless concepts.

It is beside the point if they disagree with me.

I would challenge them to prove otherwise.

For example, if everything in the universe obeys the physical laws of existence (gravity, magnetism etc) then how does one rationalise from a cosmic perspective that reason can dictate rules over and above obedience to the laws of existence?
Is it reasonable for a galaxy to collide with another, potentially killing trillions of lives?
Is it reasonable for an anteater to open up an ant nest and eat the entire colony?
Is it reasonable for a wolf to kill the lead wolf so that he can mate with the females in the group?
Is it reasonable for a small child with a magnifying glass to burn 4 ants to death by harnessing the energy of the sun?

From an ant’s perspective, having their home destroyed, their relatives, loved ones and self eaten alive may not seem reasonable at all. But from a human perspective it may seem just fine. Who cares about ants, anteaters gotta eat.

Some humans may think it unreasonable for a child to burn the ants, some may think it a good way for the kid to learn about the forces of nature and about life and death.

The cosmos, doesn’t care.

From the cosmos perspective, the only thing that is reasonable is that everything obey the physical laws of existence.

From my amoral perspective it is reasonable to not paint a target on myself, thus to treat others as I would like to be treated. With this reasoning, I don’t try to make it illegal for people to have gay sex.
I presume many Christians think it is unreasonable for people to have gay sex.
So how to resolve this dilemma using reason alone?

[Nihil Obstat]

People have use of reason though. Not galaxies or anteaters or wolves.

[stevil]

People have use of reason though. Not galaxies or anteaters or wolves.

As I have tried to articulate, people need to create a seed for their reasoning.

An atheist, a catholic, a budhist, a vegan, an amoralist, a socialist, a capitalist, these people are all going to have different seeds upon which their reasoning is based.

If reason alone were enough then all reasonable people would agree with each other.

[4588686]

Are you familiar with Kierkegaard's views on faith?

isn't fidism a heresy?

[Nihil Obstat]

As I have tried to articulate, people need to create a seed for their reasoning.

An atheist, a catholic, a budhist, a vegan, an amoralist, a socialist, a capitalist, these people are all going to have different seeds upon which their reasoning is based.

If reason alone were enough then all reasonable people would agree with each other.

 

So you do not think that people generally base their reasoning on objective facts? But rather that they start with their particular set of biases first, and integrate objective facts later?

 

isn't fidism a heresy?

Probably, but that does not mean that nothing he says could be of valuable in a more Catholic context.

[theculturewarrior]

isn't fidism a heresy?

 

Burn him!

[Papist]

That's not a good path to take because what is considered "good" is usually things that preserve survival, and vice versa with 
"evil." It is very reductionist to think of it that way, but there is no need for a deity for that system to work. 

 

Who decides what is good? What are the elements required for what is good?

[theculturewarrior]

Who decides what is good? What are the elements required for what is good?

 

It is possible for an individual to make moral decisions in the absence of religion.  This is Church doctrine.