Can An Atheist Be Invincibly Ignorant

[Resurrexi]

If you want the right answer look up "invincible ignorance" at newadvent.com

[T-Bone _]

An atheist does not seek the truth. They do not fall under "invincibly ignorant."

However there are some people who claim to be atheists, but really are not. They may qualify.

(I knew a fellow who believed in a "creative force" that was "intelligent." Not his words, but a good summary.)

[Era Might]

There are some honest atheists who are open to truth. Whether they are invincibly ignorant is not our business, and we cannot know the conscience of any man. In theory, anyone can be invincibly ignorant about anything, but that is irrelevant to our concern as Christians. We must bear witness to our faith, and let God worry about how others respond to our witness.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1327593' date='Jul 13 2007, 09:35 PM']There are some honest atheists who are open to truth. Whether they are invincibly ignorant is not our business, and we cannot know the conscience of any man. In theory, anyone can be invincibly ignorant about anything, but that is irrelevant to our concern as Christians. We must bear witness to our faith, and let God worry about how others respond to our witness.[/quote]

wrong answer

[KnightofChrist]

pah! What is the answer? I would say no atheist do not have invincible ignorance, because all men know somehow there is something greater than themselves.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1327609' date='Jul 13 2007, 10:42 PM']I would say no atheist do not have invincible ignorance, because all men know somehow there is something greater than themselves.[/quote]
Invincible ignorance refers to whether someone is culpable for their error, and that is a matter of conscience. There can be no mortal sin without full knowledge, and we have no way to see into someone's soul and to what degree they have full knowledge.

There are also a number of factors that contribute to atheism, such as suffering and the bad witness of believers. Whether or not these diminish culpability in any particular person is known only to God. Most often atheism is probably a culpable offense, and the Catechism does note that "no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man." But the larger point I would make is that the question of invincible ignorance is generally not something we should consider when sharing our faith with others. It is only a theoretical concept related to conscience. We must share the truth whether someone is invincibly ignorant or not, without regard to their conscience, always trying to illuminate the hearts of men.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='The Catholic Encyclopedia']Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching ofSt. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm[/url][/quote]

[quote name='Denzinger']1801 T.[Against all errors about the existence of God the Creator] . If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1782 ].
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php[/url][/quote]

Edited July 14, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Era Might]

[quote]It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom.[/quote]
In general this is true. The Catechism notes this as well:

[quote]Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

--CCC #1860[/quote]
However, [i]in theory[/i] it is possible to be invincibly ignorant of a principle of the moral law, because we live in a fallen world where the faculties of reason are blinded. A person who is raised to believe that there is no God, for example, may very well be invincibly ignorant. Only God knows, and only God will judge his heart. Regardless, we must share our faith with all men.

[Era Might]

More from the Catechism:

[quote]Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."

--#2125[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

I didn't vote because I don't know that it's quite so simple as the two options given. I believe in Invincible Ignorance as passed on to us by Holy Tradition, but I also believe that we are not to entertain the question beyond the general concept. Once we wander into the area of how and to who this applies when and where, then I think we have overstepped our bounds. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the idea that we are to hope for the salvation of non-Catholics. For me personally this includes trying to make this apply to certain individuals and/or groups outside of the Church. Does the concept of Invincible Ignorance exist? Yes. Can we possibly know who this applies to and in what situations? I don't think so, and I don't think it wise to try. I think we should be focusing our study areas on ways to convert non-Catholics, not in finding ways in which the non-Catholics might already have a chance to be saved without evangelization.

Edited July 14, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Resurrexi]

[b]But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.[/b]

what part of that don't you understand?

It is [i]impossible[/i]to be an invincibly ignorant atheist, even if you'd never heard of God and were raised an atheist.

[quote]I didn't vote because I don't know that it's quite so simple as the two options given. I believe in Invincible Ignorance as passed on to us by Holy Tradition, but I also believe that we are not to entertain the question beyond the general concept. Once we wander into the area of how and to who this applies when and where, then I think we have overstepped our bounds. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the idea that we are to hope for the salvation of non-Catholics. For me personally this includes trying to make this apply to certain individuals and/or groups outside of the Church. Does the concept of Invincible Ignorance exist? Yes. Can we possibly know who this applies to and in what situations? I don't think so, and I don't think it wise to try. I think we should be focusing our study areas on ways to convert non-Catholics, not in finding ways in which the non-Catholics might already have a chance to be saved without evangelization.[/quote]

The proposition condemned by the Syllabus is thus:

[quote name='Denzinger']1717 17. We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ 13. [see n. 1646] 28 [see n. 1677]).
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma18.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma18.php[/url][/quote]

Those that are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and do their best to follow the Natural Law are united to the soul of the Church and therefore this condemned proposition does not apply to them.

Edited July 14, 2007 by StThomasMore

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1327656' date='Jul 13 2007, 10:06 PM'][b]But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.[/b]

what part of that don't you understand?[/quote]

I like to believe I understand it sufficiently thank you

[quote]It is [i]impossible[/i]to be an invincibly ignorant atheist, even if you'd never heard of God and were raised an atheist.[/quote]

Okay, maybe. maybe not. I specifically said I wouldn't entertain the idea either way, as I think it a possibly dangerous principle to adopt. I think if you are to make this claim though that it would be most fair to provide some sort of Church teaching that says that an athiest can never be invincibly ignorant. Not that I care either way mind you .

[quote]The proposition condemned by the Syllabus is thus:[/quote]
Yup that's it.
[quote]Those that are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and do their best to follow the Natural Law are united to the soul of the Church and therefore this condemned proposition does not apply to them.[/quote]

First question then would be what constitutes Natural Law? It's always best to make sure everybody is on the same page regarding definitions of terms. I think we are here, but just to be sure.

[goldenchild17]

I think it appropriate for me to apologize for my hasty reply. I took a look at some theology manuals I have and found what should be a direct answer to this thread:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – Dr Ludwig Ott - p. 16
“2. Athiesm
The systems of agnosticism, skepticism, and Kantian criticism deny the certain knowability and the demonstrability of the existence of God, but can be associated with the belief in a Divine Being. They are based on the principle: We do not know and we shall not know (Ignoramus et ignorabimus).

Negative atheism is inculpable ignorance regarding the existence of God. Positive atheism (materialism, pantheism) directly denies the existence of a supramundane, personal Divine Being. In was condemned by the Vatican Council. D 1801-1803.

As far as the possibility of atheism is concerned, it cannot be denied that there are atheistic doctrinal systems (materialism, pantheism) and practical atheists, that is, people who live as if there were no God. The possibility, that there are also subjectively convinced theoretical atheists, is founded in the spiritual and moral weakness of man, and on the fact that the proofs of God are not immediately, but only mediately evident. But as the knowledge of God can easily be gained from the contemplation of nature and the life of the soul, it will not be possibly permanently to adhere to an honest and positive conviction of the non-existence of God. [b]An inculpable and [u]invincible ignorance[/u] regarding the existence of God is not possible for a long time in a normal, grown-up person, in view of the facility of the natural knowledge of God attested in Holy Writ and in Tradition.[/b] Cf. Rom. I,20; ita ut sint inexcusabiles.” (my emphasis)



While I don't think it prudent for the majority of people to spend a lot of time on this subject I did feel it necessary to at least look and see. So it does seem that an athiest, if definitely an athiest for the duration of his life, probably doesn't fall under the protection of invincible ignorance.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1327551' date='Jul 13 2007, 09:59 PM']If you want the right answer look up "invincible ignorance" at newadvent.com[/quote]
If they're a right answer, there's no debate.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1327653' date='Jul 14 2007, 12:05 AM']I didn't vote because I don't know that it's quite so simple as the two options given. I believe in Invincible Ignorance as passed on to us by Holy Tradition, but I also believe that we are not to entertain the question beyond the general concept. Once we wander into the area of how and to who this applies when and where, then I think we have overstepped our bounds. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the idea that we are to hope for the salvation of non-Catholics. For me personally this includes trying to make this apply to certain individuals and/or groups outside of the Church. Does the concept of Invincible Ignorance exist? Yes. Can we possibly know who this applies to and in what situations? I don't think so, and I don't think it wise to try. I think we should be focusing our study areas on ways to convert non-Catholics, not in finding ways in which the non-Catholics might already have a chance to be saved without evangelization.[/quote]
YES.