I just had to get this off of my chest.  It’s been nagging at me for a while now, and I thought I should get it out into the open so that there can be the start of a legitimate dialogue on the subject: it’s about how atheists engage in argumentation.  It has struck me that atheists often do not have very good, solid arguments that actually address the Catholic position: they simply play off shallow crowd sentiment and popular perception of religion, the “minimum standard” of empiricism, or a circumvention of actual points in favor of straw men.  This is not to say that Catholics and other Christians do not do similar things during debates at times, only that I always see popular atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do this quite frequently.

Sam Harris

Professor Richard Dawkins

Shallow Crowd Sentiment and Popular Perception of Religion

You’ll notice in this clip of Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig that Harris simply makes emotional appeals in his attempt to “disprove” Christianity.  He says nothing of substance and only makes the standard non-believer’s appeal to mass suffering as evidence of God’s utter fakeness (didn’t’cha know?) as well as the supposed “impossibility” of transubstantiation, in the process dismissing Catholics as loons and morons.

He cares nothing for the explications of Augustine, and, more recently, of Dr. Peter Kreeft, on the so-called “problem of evil,” nor does he care for the rich exegesis of Scripture and long and rich theological tradition of the belief in transubstantiation.  Nope.  No sirree.  He is after the zinger.  The one line or two that’ll get the Internet fired up with irrational Catholic-bashing.  I suggest you watch the full debate.

Now, you will notice that Craig makes it known that Harris must meet certain benchmarks in order to make his case for atheism.  He must show that 1) Craig’s arguments are flawed—cast a negative pallor upon Christianity and Craig’s arguments—AND 2) put forward a positive argument FOR atheism.  Harris does neither.  He simply avoids Craig’s arguments and plays off of supposed “self-evident” truths about how stupid religious beliefs are.

Harris essentially latches on to something that appears “awful” or contradictory of God to do (“If you believe in the wrong god, you are doomed, in Dr. Craig’s universe.”) and then (metaphorically, of course) flaps his arms and exaggeratingly expresses his utter disbelief and disdain for the thing.  Imagine Harris, upon finding some doctrine or teaching or practice of Catholicism (like the Trinity or transubstantiation), yells really loudly in a drawn-out tone, “Hey guys [atheists, skeptics, agnostics, non-believers, et al]!  Look at how dumb this thing is!  I can’t believe any sane person actually believes in any of this mumbo jumbo. Haha!”

Harris, frantically flagging down his supporters so they can
all engage in a therapeutic religion bashing session together.

He allows his degrees and scientific background to speak for him, while playing off of a shallow and misinformed crowd hankering for its next superstitious idea to lambaste.  There’s only one problem, Harris: Catholicism is not a superstition or a myth: it is TRUE, and until you actually demonstrate otherwise, just cut the shenanigans.

Science Alone!

Another tactic atheists use nowadays is to demand that all knowledge must pass muster with *drum roll please!* the scientific method.

Here’s the problem with this worldview: atheists say that something must be proven via the scientific method for them to accept that that something is true.  There are two problems with this view:

1) The statement and standard, “I will only believe what science tells me is true” cannot itself be validated by science or by the scientific method.  Said another way, the statement, “The only true things are those which can be proven by science” can in no way be validated by precisely the only thing (supposedly) that can be trusted to give us accurate information: science.  How can atheists rely solely on science to lead them to truths if the only thing that can lead them to said truths cannot even tell them that it itself is indeed the only thing that can do so?  Methinks there’s a problem there….

2) The worldview is also circular in validation.  Atheists only accept scientific findings as true; therefore, anything outside of science is false.  This is obviously circular logic: I will only accept what science can prove as true, and science cannot prove anything outside of science; therefore, all things outside science are false.  Their worldview leaves no room for anything outside of science, but it was chosen essentially arbitrarily so as to rid themselves of the pesky reality of the supernatural.  Plain and simple: science can NEVER disprove God because He is, by definition, SUPERnatural: science can only deal with that-which-can-be-found-and-experimented-upon-in-the-natural-realm.

Furthermore, just because God cannot be tested for scientifically does not mean that He is not real.  That’s like using a ruler to measure the temperature of a pot of boiling water and then claiming with certainty that trees can swim because the ruler isn’t giving you a darned temperature reading.

That darn pot....

There are many things that science simply cannot speak to, or if it can, we don’t employ it for that purpose in practical matters.  For example, science cannot adequately explain, beyond the hormones and chemicals involved, love and beauty.  Why the two have almost transcendent elements intrinsic to them is beyond the scope of science.  Additionally, let’s assume science could speak to love.  Even if it could, what good is it, really?  Ask yourself: does Dawkins really go home every night, and before even speaking to or kissing his wife, perform the requisite scientific test to determine if she still loves him?  Of course not!  The bottom line is that this sole reliance on empiricism is a self-fulfilling prophecy: science will never find God.  I only trust science.  Therefore, God is not real.  Juvenile reasoning at best.

Avoiding the Actual Topic at Hand

Finally, a last favorite tactic of atheists is the simple circumvention of an actual point in favor of a foray into foggy emotionalism or simple wrong-headedness.  Some examples are in order.

First, we have the Kalām Cosmological Argument, popularized by Dr. Craig, which proceeds thusly:

Premise-1: Nothing can begin to exist without a cause.

Premsise-2: The universe began to exist (some 13.75 billion years ago).

Premise-3: Therefore, the cause of the universe would have to be something transcendent and extraordinarily—infinitely—powerful.  This being is classically referred to as God.

This argument relies on the “hidden” premise of the definition of God, or at least of one of His attributes.  God, as He has always been classically understood by Catholics, is He Who Must Exist, He Who Is Being Itself, He Who Cannot Not Exist, Ipsum Esse.

So, what do atheists love to do in the face of this argument?  Simply ask the wrong-headed question: “Well, then who or what created God?”  The problem here is that atheists fundamentally misunderstand WHAT God is.  They view Him as just another trumped up being or a really, really, really, powerful creature.  This is simply not the case.

To ask, “What created God?” is as misguided and ignorant as asking, “Why can’t we have a five-sided triangle—in Euclidian geometry—with more or less than 180°?”  You can see why this is a nonsensical question: bound up in the definition, in the reality of a Euclidian triangle itself, is that it has exactly 180° and is three-sided: no more, no less.

If it were to have five sides, it would be a pentagon, not a triangle; if it were to have more or less than 180°, then it would lose one of its essential properties.  The same logic applies to God.  God must exist; it is His nature as much as it is the triangle’s “nature” to be three-sided and contain precisely 180°.

(Nota bene: this last line of reasoning also does not even speak to the impossibility of an infinite regress, a necessary fixture of metaphysics if God is removed from the picture.)

Dawkins has said:

“If you believe this is the only life you're going to get, it’s a precious life.  We should live to the full.  Where if you believe in another life, you don’t live this life to the full because you think you’re going to get another one.  That’s an awfully negative way to live a life.”

Here’s the problem: what Dawkins mistakenly believes (either willfully or out of ignorance, the world may never know) is that the afterlife is simply more of an Earthly existence, or perhaps that it is some kind of “cosmic do-over.”  He is fundamentally wrong on this point.  The afterlife is a quantum leap, so to speak, in degree of difference from Earth and this mortal life.

Jacob's Ladder

You can see all the ways Dawkins goes wrong in his assessment of the afterlife in this post regarding the nature of Heaven.  He simply avoids the necessary background study in Catholic theology and then makes bold, sweeping conclusions about the faith.  I suggest he study more of that which he is attempting to discredit and/or mock before he actually attempts to discredit and/or mock the thing.

So those were just some of the annoying bits of the ways atheists argue concerning God and religion.  Let me know what you guys think in the Comments section!  Did I miss anything?  Was I spot-on or nah?

Follow @DeionKathawa

We all know that person. They are not a part of organized religion because it’s too “oppressive.”  It controls people, hoards money, and judges those who are different.  This view of being spiritual but not religious can take many forms.  I believe that many adopt it out of a desire for flexibility, as a way to affirm their own innate sense of being more than simply material beings, but I believe that even more take up the practice out of a desire to “not judge” or “infringe upon someone else’s truth.”  If done correctly, it leads to foolishness such as claiming to hate religion, but love Jesus.  I will freely admit that the blame for the “spiritual but not religious” craze probably falls most squarely upon the members of the Catholic Church.  Fact of the matter is that we Catholics have not done a good enough job connecting with people and spreading the One Truth.  I plan to fix this, one blog post at a time.

Witness the Eastern spiritualite who adheres to the spiritual principles of reincarnation, karma, and meditation.  That each man is his own and on his own journey, yet somehow ethereally connected to all other men within some sort of transcendent “All.”

  

Or the more Westernized version of the same sort of idea: renegading “free thinkers” who feel that organized religion is either uncool or just so Dark Ages that they can’t be bothered with it.  But when pressed as to why they practice yoga?  (“No way brah!  Yoga is so chill.  (As they ignore the fact that yoga predates Christianity.))  The meaning and purpose of their lives are what they make of them, not what some stodgy old cleric who’s probably never even had sex or smoked pot before says they are.  They decide their own spiritual path, damnit!  Then, we have the better, but still grimace-inducing quasi-Protestant, who feels that it’s all about his “personal relationship with Jesus.”  Everything else he does is extra—it’s that really personal, lovey-dovey “happy-happy times” feeling he gets when he thinks about Jesus that really matters.  That’s what counts, not some ancient tradition, or rituals, or anything like church attendance—Heaven forbid!

The unifying, undergirding maxim of all three of these “spiritual but not religious” folks’ respective iterations (and I am sure that there are many, many more) is quite nicely summed up with a reference to pop culture.  Will Ferrell, playing candidate Cam Brady in The Campaign, in response to the question, “Is it true that you have not been to church in over nine months?” had this to say: “My relationship to God is not measured by taking attendance.”

I’d like to press the point a bit, if I may: is what Ferrell is saying here really true?  I know it sounds really good and appealing.  God is everywhere!  God loves and accepts all people!  Religion divides and controls people!  Boo religion!  It’s icky and the leaders just want to hoard as much money as possible and rape altar boys and yada-yada-yada.  We’ve heard it all before.  And guess what guys?  I am quick to agree with him on this one!  (Shocker?  Maybe; depends on how well you know me, I guess.)  My relationship with God is certainly not measured by how often I attend church….  Except when it is.  Said another way: if I have a true relationship with God, then I will be at church, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Allow me to explain.  All this “spiritual but not religious” jargon is akin to a man who, when asked if he loves his mother, says, “Of course I love my mother: I think about her all the time.”  When asked how often he calls her, he replies, “You know, I would say that it’s usually when I have nothing better to do.”  When asked how often he visits her, he replies, “Well, maybe on Christmas, but that’s about it; she knows I love her, though.”

We would all cringe at these answers, would we not?  It is almost instinctive that we reject this person’s responses about his actions concerning his love for his mother.  Why is this so?  It is because, like it or not, ideas have consequences, and this man is not showing, by his actions, that he loves his mother as much as his lip-service is claiming he does.  It is a very simple concept.  My ideas about the world, the things in it, the people I am involved with, all have consequences.  If I believe that there are such things as shoe-upside-down hobgoblins who will steal my shoes in the dead of night if I leave them upside down, and I want to keep my shoes, well, I am going to make damn well sure that my shoes stay right-side-up, right?  If I believe that trees can talk, and I want to talk to trees, well, I am going to spend my time trying to communicate with trees, right?  And if I believe that my friend is mad at me, and I care to have a good relationship with my friend, then I am going to try to figure out how best to make amends with my friend, right?

In the same way, if I believe that there is a God, and I wish to have a connection with Him/have a relationship with Him/be in communion with Him, then I will strive to do that-which-will-permit-me-to-do-this-best, right?  It is true that He is omnipresent—He is everywhere.  I get that when you tip your waitress a little extra, or volunteer at a homeless shelter, or even when you just meditate or pray in your room, that He is present.  This is not news, people.  But, from a Catholic perspective, there is a radical difference between being at Mass and being anywhere else, because, at Mass, God makes Himself present to us in a unique and special way.

Let’s run through it really fast.  Let’s just say that there was an institution that purported to have been founded by God’s Son.  Let’s just say it also purported to have never fallen into true error in an official capacity (nor will it ever).  Let’s just say it’s been around for, oh, just about 2,000 years now (ahem, oldest institution on the face of the earth *cough* and still chuggin’ along, I might add *cough*).  Let’s just say it also kick-started the Scientific Revolution.  Let’s also add in the fact that this institution claims that you can (and should!) eat the flesh of the ever-living God-man, Christ, and drink His most Precious Blood EVERY. DAMN. DAY!  (If you so choose, of course.)  And this institution cares so much about this practice that it actually requires its faithful to come every Sunday to partake in the meal (provided they are properly disposed, of course).  Now, I’m not saying that those who are “spiritual but not religious” can’t connect in some meaningful sense with God, or be saved, etc. etc., but if there were an institution that claimed all this, wouldn’t you be in the least bit curious about it?  Wouldn’t you at least seriously investigate it?  And at most, be a part of it wholeheartedly?

In case you haven’t figured out that the Catholic Church was the glorious subject of that last paragraph, I will make it painfully obvious: yes, I was referring to the Catholic Church.  And let me just add that going to Mass is not some requirement to be checked off of our proverbial cosmic to-do lists on our way to salvation (or at least it shouldn’t be).  Mass is a fundamentally relational activity.  A man is more in a relationship with God at Mass than he is anywhere else, doing anything else.  In fact, he is as in communion with God at Mass as he ever can be here on Earth, this side of death.

So the next time you run across that “spiritual but not religious” person, ask them if they take pleasure in depriving themselves of the activity that most fully places them in communion with that which they claim to be seeking—God.  Ask them if they regularly settle.  Because that’s what “I’m spiritual but not religious” means: “I’m settling.”  It means, “I know of this other activity which can satisfy my desire for God better, but I won’t partake in it, just because, well, because rules (or fill in your particular pet peeve here).”  Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.  How about for you guys?

Follow @DeionKathawa