Conversations with an Atheist

[Cure of Ars]

Here is my response to an atheist. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. I am not done yet. I am still working on it.

[quote]but they did develop a lot of stuff like they could predict the travel of comets, eclipses, had mathmatical knowledge of density, boyancy, etc.[/quote]


True that

[quote]But it took a long time until scientists could publish and talk without being branded heretics.[/quote]

I think this is a secular stereotype of Catholic history.

[quote] But Copernicus's theory was denied by the catholic Church because Brutus (I think that is his name) supported the heretical idea that Jesus came from Egypt (based on Horus) and Jesus was a sun god. The sun center idea fit into his religious belief.[/quote]

The Catholic Church did not condemn Copernicus’ “theory” (at that time it was not proven yet). Between the time of Copernicus and Galileo the Catholic Church did nothing in regards to the theory. The problem arouse when Galileo challenged the Catholic teaching of the inerrancy of scripture. If Galileo would have said that his position was just a theory, (which it was at that time period) and if he had not brought the issue into the sphere of theology there would not have been a problem.

I truly believe that it is unfair to label the Catholic Church as intrinsically opposed to science because of the Galileo controversy (although secularists love to paint this picture). The phenomenon of being resistant to a paradigm shift is not exclusively a Catholic phenomenon to Science. The Resistances to a new paradigm has happened historically in the scientific community itself. Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions calls scientific research "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education." Resisting a paradigm shift is really the human (scientific and Catholic) norm and not the exception.

[quote]Yet, the strife between the Protestants and Catholics allowed for people to talk about it without either religion being powerful enough to stop it.[/quote]

The Catholic position is really the middle ground of two extremes. Protestants, especially Luther and Calvin espoused nominalism and rejected reason as a way to access knowledge of God. Luther said ,"reason has been blinded through the corruption of nature and as a result is unable to understand 'what belongs to the Spirit of God.'" (Hägglund 218) On the other hand, secularists espoused nominalism to the other extreme and rejected faith in accessing truth. Catholics on the other had espoused that faith and reason are not exclusive but cooperate in accessing knowledge. This tension between faith and reason has been fruitful. Rejection of one over the other leads to an unsymmetrical worldview, which hinders the search for truth. There is a lack of synergy when faith or reason is denied. Because of this, science has become too right brained it lacks awe, wonder, creativity, meaning, and a larger, more holistic view of reality. The following is an important point and a huge problem with modernism. ;

[quote]There is something which unites magic and applied science [technology] while separating both from the `wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men, and the solution is a technique. (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man) [/quote]

Modernism is really not concerned with getting to truth. It is more concerned with dominating nature. It really does not want to submit to truth. Science has made great gains in gaining power to manipulate nature. But just when we have all this power, we have not developed in the science of virtues, which is needed to wield the power that we have in a responsible way.

We have made little progress on the most important questions. Which are also the harder questions. They are the questions that we must submit to faith to gain access. Something modernism is not willing to do. This fault could be man’s down fall.


[quote]I will check it out when I get a chance, but I am skeptical of this. The Christian worldview tended to make people believe the Earth did not move and that angels moved planets around. Humanity was suppose to be the center of everything and the Earth was about 6,000 years old. That slowed down the science because religious people had to either accept what they saw or what they believed. [/quote]

Here is a quote from St. Augustine that shows that what you are saying is not necessarily true.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”  ( The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Chapter 19)


[quote]But I think it misses the point to think in terms of rationality. We are just following physics without and making decisions based on physics. We are just robots that are good at pattern recognition and analog storage.[/quote]

Are humans rational or not? Pattern recognition and analog storage is not rationality.

[quote]How do you know He has no parts? He can talk, so something moves. He can walk so something else propels Him. Is there something that says He has no parts or is this a guess? [/quote]

"God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24

"a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39)

[quote]Just like a snowflake doesn't need a designer.[/quote]

A snowflake has a designer. You are looking at secondary causes only while I am looking at the first Cause along with the secondary causes.

[quote]I can try to do is get society to back me up in trying to stop people from doing any of those things.[/quote]

So might makes right?


[url="http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=16144&start=15"]http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.p...=16144&start=15[/url]

Edited June 30, 2005 by Cure of Ars

[phatcatholic]

as far as content is concerned, it all sounds good to me. just a few grammatical errors. u forgot ur first quotation mark for the quote from augustine. also "unsymmetical" should be "asymmetrical"

[Fides_et_Ratio]

phatcatholic pointed out the immediate things I noticed.

other than that. sounds great, Cure of Ars! the bit about faith and reason made me think of my signature (and username on PM)... JPII had many GREAT things to say about the relationship between faith and reason. they are most definitely not opposed nor neglected in the Catholic faith.

[Cure of Ars]

Thanks Nick. Here is my final answer.


[quote]but they did develop a lot of stuff like they could predict the travel of comets, eclipses, had mathmatical knowledge of density, boyancy, etc.[/quote]


True that

[quote]But it took a long time until scientists could publish and talk without being branded heretics.[/quote]

I think this is a secular stereotype of Catholic history. Take the university for example. The univeristy is a Catholic concept, started by Catholics.

[quote] But Copernicus's theory was denied by the catholic Church because Brutus (I think that is his name) supported the heretical idea that Jesus came from Egypt (based on Horus) and Jesus was a sun god. The sun center idea fit into his religious belief.[/quote]

The Catholic Church did not condemn Copernicus’ “theory” (at that time it was not proven yet). Between the time of Copernicus and Galileo the Catholic Church did nothing in regards to the theory. The problem arouse when Galileo challenged the Catholic teaching of the inerrancy of scripture. If Galileo would have said that his position was just a theory, (which it was at that time period) and if he had not brought the issue into the sphere of theology there would not have been a problem.

I truly believe that it is unfair to label the Catholic Church as intrinsically opposed to science because of the Galileo controversy (although secularists love to paint this picture). The phenomenon of being resistant to a paradigm shift is not exclusively a Catholic phenomenon to Science. The resistance to a new paradigm has happened historically in the scientific community itself. Kuhn in his book, [u]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[/u] calls scientific research "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education." Resisting a paradigm shift is really the human (scientific and Catholic) norm and not the exception.

[quote]Yet, the strife between the Protestants and Catholics allowed for people to talk about it without either religion being powerful enough to stop it.[/quote]

The Catholic position is really the middle ground of two extremes. Protestants, especially Luther and Calvin espoused nominalism and rejected reason as a way to access knowledge of God. Luther said ,"reason has been blinded through the corruption of nature and as a result is unable to understand 'what belongs to the Spirit of God.'" (Hägglund 218) On the other hand, secularists espoused nominalism to the other extreme and rejected faith in accessing truth. Catholics on the other had espoused that faith and reason are not exclusive but cooperate in accessing knowledge. The tension between faith and reason has been fruitful. Rejection of one over the other leads to an asymmetrical worldview, which hinders the search for truth. There is a lack of synergy when faith or reason is denied. Because of this, science has become too right brained, it lacks awe, wonder, creativity, meaning, and a larger, more holistic view of reality. The following is an important point and a huge problem with how modern science is being done.

[quote]There is something which unites magic and applied science [technology] while separating both from the `wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men, and the solution is a technique. (C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man) [/quote]

Modernism is really not concerned with getting to truth. It is more concerned with dominating nature just like magic. It really does not want to submit to truth. Science has made great gains in gaining power to manipulate nature. But just when we have all this power, we have not developed in the science of virtues, which is needed to wield the power that we have in a responsible way.

We have made little progress on the most important questions. Which are also the harder questions. They are the questions that we must submit to by faith to gain access to the answers. Something modernism is not willing to do. This fault could be man’s down fall.


[quote]I will check it out when I get a chance, but I am skeptical of this. The Christian worldview tended to make people believe the Earth did not move and that angels moved planets around. Humanity was suppose to be the center of everything and the Earth was about 6,000 years old. That slowed down the science because religious people had to either accept what they saw or what they believed. [/quote]

Here is a quote from St. Augustine (354-430 AD) that shows that what you are saying is not necessarily true.

[quote]Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Chapter 19)[/quote]


[quote]But I think it misses the point to think in terms of rationality. We are just following physics without and making decisions based on physics. We are just robots that are good at pattern recognition and analog storage.[/quote]

Are humans rational or not? Pattern recognition and analog storage is not rationality. I really find you concept of humans dehumanizing.

[quote]How do you know He has no parts? He can talk, so something moves. He can walk so something else propels Him. Is there something that says He has no parts or is this a guess? [/quote]

"God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

"a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39)

[quote]Just like a snowflake doesn't need a designer.[/quote]

Your answer begs the question. A snowflake has a designer. You are looking at secondary causes while I am looking at the first Cause along with the secondary causes.

[quote]In this case, I could have the power, but I would have to give up something todo it. Either I would not have to care about the computer Sims or I would have to delight in making them miserable.[/quote]

This is a false dilemma. There is a third option, which I have given, God allowing evil for a greater good. Here is another posibility but I do not claim that it is the total answer. The answer is beyond use.

[quote]The pinnacle of this revelation, which Balthasar calls the "Christform", is Jesus nailed to the Cross. One may object, "How can the crucifixion of Jesus be the preeminent revelation of Beauty?" In the ugliest place of human existence (crucifixion and death) God reveals himself as absolute, total self-giving love. The Trinity is self-giving love. [b]Being disguised under the disfigurement of an ugly crucifixion and death, the Christform is paradoxically the clearest revelation of who God is. This love can only be fully revealed in a world corrupted by sin through death, the ultimate expression of self-giving in this world.[/b]
[url="http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/jcihak_hubapol_may05.asp"]http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features200...bapol_may05.asp[/url]
[/quote]


[quote]I can try to do is get society to back me up in trying to stop people from doing any of those things.[/quote]

So might makes right? I also like to say that I do not agree with your interpretation of Scripture.


[quote]So you believe because other people believe and you believe because of your prayer experience.[/quote]

I believe not just because the saints believed but because they believed and had lives that gave witness to God and his love. They lived lives that were believable. The saints were willing to die for truth.

[quote]Now could God or Jesus trick or lie to people? If so, that would mean they could have fooled the saints. But could they fool you in prayer? How do you know they do not lie in prayer?[/quote]

Jesus gave his live for love of use. What motive would he have to lie? He gave everything for truth. He is the truth.

[quote]There is the option that God could remove someone from existance instead of let them suffer.[/quote]

The stakes are high. I don’t have all the answers, again God is transendent and I don’t understand all of God’s reasons. If I understood everything about God then He wouldn’t be transendent.

[quote]Do you believe it is wrong to kill someone in a painful manner when less painful ways are available? (cruel and usunual punishment)?[/quote]

Cruel and unusual punishment is subjective. I personally don’t think that capital punishment should be used in our society because criminals can be held safely in the penitentiary system and this guards against human error. Although, I also believe that the State has the right of capital punishment to protect citiziens and that execution by a painful manner is a deterrent to crime. In relation to God, I believe that he is just and that he does use suffering and death as punishment for individual sin and for sins commited by humaity as a whole. I also believe that God uses suffering to bring us closer to him and that we can unite our suffering to Christ’s suffering and when we do this it gives glory to God.

[quote]I have done this before and nothing happened. Therefore, God must not exist or must not want me to believe He exists.[/quote]

This is too bad. (I have a feeling that this is another false dilemma)

[Technicoid]

Looks good. I also understand that the Copernican theory didn't account for some observable phenomena (paralax), and Galileo had no answer for them either. I think Kepler finally resolved those questions.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jul 1 2005, 12:09 PM']Looks good. I also understand that the Copernican theory didn't account for some observable phenomena (paralax), and Galileo had no answer for them either. I think Kepler finally resolved those questions.
[right][snapback]629365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I did not know this. I will look into this. Thanks

[Technicoid]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 1 2005, 06:22 PM']I did not know this.  I will look into this.  Thanks
[/quote]

See [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp"]The Galileo Controversy[/url].

[curtins]

Looks and sounds good but honestly I have no idea what your talking about