Can An Atheist Be Catholic?

[MIKolbe]

You're just restating your issue, not answering my question....

 

Or, you are saying faith is not requisite in "following the forms" of Catholicism; and if so, you have answered as best you can.

 

I would say one cannot 'follow the forms" of Catholicism without faith.  I think this is were we digress in agreement.

 

One may like to think they can, but they would just like pretty things, pretty thoughts, and ritual; while intellectually attempting to compartmentalize faith by juxtaposing it against itself.

 

but...juxtapose away :)

 

 

[Era Might]

You're just restating your issue, not answering my question....

 

Or, you are saying faith is not requisite in "following the forms" of Catholicism; and if so, you have answered as best you can.

 

I would say one cannot 'follow the forms" of Catholicism without faith.  I think this is were we digress in agreement.

 

One may like to think they can, but they would just like pretty things, pretty thoughts, and ritual; while intellectually attempting to compartmentalize faith by juxtaposing it against itself.

 

but...juxtapose away :)

 

Well there you go, so back to the original question: should men follow their conscience into unbelief, or live a lie.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Era Might

[Not A Real Name]

The same way someone might participate in a rain dance without believing in the myth behind it. One can respect and admire myth without believing in it. There are also many practical benefits, e.g., one can admire confession for reasons other than believing in the idea of Christian redemption from sin.

 

 

Maybe if you were a historian yes, but you're not talking about just admiring a ritual you are talking about "following forms" which no atheist would do.  They may enjoy the material beauty of a rain dance, but they would never live the forms of an Native American way of life completely.  Besides atheists already have their own version of these forms.  Their view of confession would be psychiatry, fasting would be dieting, and so forth.   Faith is what makes these things more than just human behaviors.  

Edited December 23, 2014 by Not A Real Name

[Era Might]

Maybe if you were a historian yes, but you're not talking about just admiring a ritual you are talking about "following forms" which no atheist would do.  They may enjoy the material beauty of a rain dance, but they would never live the forms of an Native American way of life completely.  Besides atheists already have their own version of these forms.  Their view of confession would be psychiatry, fasting would be dieting, and so forth.   Faith is what makes these things more than just human behaviors.  

 

Yes, basically the explanation of religion in general is that it is a form to accomplish all kinds of human ends: forgiveness, reverence for mystery, give meaning to nature, create community, etc. One could practice psychiatry, but also value the non-professional context of confession, just as a Jew might not give up celebrating passover even if they don't believe God smote the first-born of Egypt.

 

But anyway, my question is more from the perspective of the religion, rather than the doubter. Should they be advised to follow their conscience into unbelief, if, as you say, form without faith is worthless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I guess you'd be in the company if Bishop Spong and other post-Theist Christians.

I wouldn't expect open arms from those whose Christianity is fundamentally theistic and based on the supernatural.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Pretended "faith" is the worst kind, imho. Form without faith is a somewhat different thing. Politely bowing during grace vs. receiving communion, for example. The former is being respectful, the latter would be disrespectful. Depends on the particulars. What the true believers believe and how they feel matters. At least that's how I would look at it.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Laudate_Dominum

[Not A Real Name]

Yes, basically the explanation of religion in general is that it is a form to accomplish all kinds of human ends: forgiveness, reverence for mystery, give meaning to nature, create community, etc. One could practice psychiatry, but also value the non-professional context of confession, just as a Jew might not give up celebrating passover even if they don't believe God smote the first-born of Egypt.

 

But anyway, my question is more from the perspective of the religion, rather than the doubter. Should they be advised to follow their conscience into unbelief, if, as you say, form without faith is worthless.

 

An atheist would argue that religion is form to accomplish all kinds of human ends.  A theist would believe religion is a form to accomplish a supernatural end; union with God.   Yes, an atheist can appreciate these things but they would never live them.  I can appreciate Buddhism, but this does not mean I'm going to follow the forms of Buddhism, since I do not believe in it. 

 

The Catholic Faith would encourage the person who has doubts to investigate the faith more.  Maybe speak with a priest or teacher of the Faith. They would be encouraged to talk about their doubts with someone knowledgeable in the faith and to abstain from receiving communion if this person identifies themselves as being an atheist. .

[Era Might]

An atheist would argue that religion is form to accomplish all kinds of human ends.  A theist would believe religion is a form to accomplish a supernatural end; union with God.   Yes, an atheist can appreciate these things but they would never live them.  I can appreciate Buddhism, but this does not mean I'm going to follow the forms of Buddhism, since I do not believe in it. 

 

Well, it's quibbling with words, but by "atheist" I just mean "non-believer" in the supernatural myths underpinning the religion. "God" is a useful concept anyway, because God is essentially the overall explanation, which could take the form of a personal God (Jesus, Apollo, etc.) or could just be nature in general. The essence of God is not any particular form it takes, but its usefulness to human beings as a supreme symbol of meaning. One could very easily adopt Buddhism or Christianity as a mythological structure/symbol to give form to that basic human need for God as a lynchpin or cornerstone of meaning.

[Era Might]

Pretended "faith" is the worst kind, imho. Form without faith is a somewhat different thing. Politely bowing during grace vs. receiving communion, for example. The former is being respectful, the latter would be disrespectful. Depends on the particulars. What the true believers believe and how they feel matters. At least that's how I would look at it.

 

Agree, though I wonder if the person in that case mind as well just find another religion that will admit them to full participation, give up religion altogether, or just create their own (though all of those have their drawbacks if they happen to be attached to a particular ancient religion, as a Jew or Catholic might).

[Lilllabettt]

Whenever I see people, celebrities or whomever, deciding to "put to use" a religion,  I am offended on behalf of that religion. It's not respectful of the integrity of the religious system. A religious tradition should not be dismembered so that the "useful" bits might be exploited by non-adherents. Yes, religion nourishes a fundamental human need we all share, but there are secular substitutions available for people who are not willing to embrace "the real deal."

[Era Might]

Whenever I see people, celebrities or whomever, deciding to "put to use" a religion,  I am offended on behalf of that religion. It's not respectful of the integrity of the religious system. A religious tradition should not be dismembered so that the "useful" bits might be exploited by non-adherents. Yes, religion nourishes a fundamental human need we all share, but there are secular substitutions available for people who are not willing to embrace "the real deal."

 

I don't think secular "substitutes" are enough, because the basis of religion is that it is mythological, non-rational, symbolic, etc. I would look at that kind of "appropriation" of religious symbolism as proof of the fact, that today people are displaced from mythology, and are just trying to cling on to something that is not scientific, rational, logical. In Greece and Rome nobody really cared which gods you worshipped so long as you worshipped them...that you weren't an "atheist" as they saw Christians (because they wouldn't worship the gods). I suppose that kind of "all or nothing" approach to religion is fundamental to early Christianity, though I think part of Catholicism's appeal is that it has not been so rigid, that it has allowed for a range of devotion. "Here comes everybody" as they say, not just the die-hard martyrs and celibates (indeed, everyone is in some way Catholic, insofar as to serve the poor, the outcast, the imprisoned is equated to serving Christ, they are all somehow included in the fold, whether they know it or not).

[Anomaly]

Suppose a person were to follow all the forms of Catholicism - moral, sacramental, ecclesiastical, etc. - but has no real faith, does not believe in God nor in Christ as God. Would that life not be a lie? Shouldn't that person live their lives according to their lack of faith, rather than live a lie?

 

I would thing personal integrity would direct the honest non-theist person to live their lives according to their lack of faith.  I think an atheist could follow the forms of Catholicism, moral and ecclesiastical, but not sacramental.  If the atheist is motivated enough to be morally follow Catholicism (assuming more than a rudimentary knowledge), than supposedly they would understand the requirements of Faith to participate in the Sacramental rituals.

[Seven77]

Pascal’s Wager...

[Nihil Obstat]

Pascal’s Wager...

...cannot create Faith where none exists or where it has been rejected?
...is not really all that great an example of logic?
...is necessarily unable to cope with the real difficulties presented by mutually exclusive religious beliefs?

[xSilverPhinx]

I think people shouldn't live a lie, but "coming out of the closet" so to speak can be a complex issue, with so much more involved than merely apostasy.