Taste and See

O taste and see that the Lord is good!" -Ps. 34:8 [RSV]

One final thought on the theme of atheism vs. faith:

If a key point is free will, then an even greater point is simple experience. What I mean is this: The atheist proclaims that God does not exist, or that God is dead. The believer replies, "I'm sure you are mistaken, because I just talked to Him!"   God has become, not a feeble wish or a cerebral notion, but as real as any human friend, perhaps the Realest Friend of all.

Sound logic and reason may lead one to the brink of faith, to the valley of decision. In the end it takes a raw act of the will, a deliberate choice, to make the leap. This leap, regardless of how reasonable, is often rather frightening. Sort of like jumping out of the moving airplane. You're pretty sure the parachute will open, and yet your heart is in your throat as you take the plunge.

What happens when you take the plunge is what I mean by experience. You jump, half doubtful and frightened, and -- you are caught safely in the Everlasting Arms. Once that happens, you can never be the same. You may turn aside, (backslide, as the Baptists say), you may doubt, you may end up rejecting the love once keenly and joyfully received. Or you may grow daily in that love and in the depth of your faith. For most believers, life becomes a messy quagmire of sometimes rejecting and sometimes growing. But once you've had an experience of God, you're never the same. You walk with the Lord, not just because it's logical and reasonable, and not merely because you've chosen to. You simply know that it's real, beyond raw will and beyond rational cogitation. You just know. You no longer know about God; you've met Him, and know Him as a person.

They say the proof is in the pudding. The Psalm verse cited above is an invitation to taste the pudding. Go ahead, take the plunge, and see for yourself.

Reason and volition

Pseudo-atheism and pseudo-intellectualism aside, the possibility of true, rational atheism should be allowed as well. Since my last blog post, I have spent some time in perusing and cogitating and writing about the relative merits of atheistic vs. Christian/theistic systems of thought from within the discipline of logic. But the writing part, while still just the hint of an insignificant beginning, soon became much too long and involved for a blog post. If you are so inclined, you may read and judge for yourself at http://www.bmi.net/~dogpatchnorth/atheism1.php. This may be a work in progress, as I think of more to say, or respond to critical review.

Cutting to the chase here on the blog, I believe that a key point in favor of theism is the issue of free will, or volition. In the atheistic paradigm, man is composed solely of physical stuff; there is no spiritual component. This means he is driven by a combination of genetics and environment, determinism is the rule, and free will cannot exist. The theistic system allows for free will, and the Christian system positively affirms it.

Ironically, this rational point reveals the relative unimportance of rational argumentation. Sound reason may lead to faith, but if we have free will, each individual has the ability to choose whether or not to believe, whether for rational reasons or otherwise.

The opposite also applies. If we lack free will, rational disputation is pointless. The determinist says that everyone behaves in a determined way. He says to the Christian, "You believe because of your genetics, upbringing, and environment." The Christian replies, "You choose to disbelieve." It's a rational stalemate.

My earlier point still applies (see "Pseudo-atheism" below). Within the system of materialism and determinism, evangelism is absolutely pointless. Within the free will system, rational disputation may not sway many minds, but, together with other means of evangelistic outreach, it does at least make some sense.

I, for my part, have chosen to believe that I have the freedom to choose. Why? Because it's more reasonable.

Pseudo-intellectualism

In a similar vein as the previous post, there seems to be an abundance of illogic posturing as intelligence.

One prime example of this is the individual who smugly dismisses religious faith as irrational. The presumption seems to be that folks who believe in God must be gullible fools, lacking either the intellectual competence or the honesty to question the tenets of their faith, who blindly cling to the comforts of religion. The pathetic irony is that the reverse appears to be the case. At least, I have yet to hear an avowed atheist present a rational argument for his lack of faith.

Most of the supposed arguments for unbelief end up being little more than contrived diatribes. Some priest or minister or devout Christian was guilty of such and such scandalous behavior. Or the stereotypically distorted versions of the Inquisition or Crusades are presented as somehow proving the insincerity or hypocrisy of believers. Never mind that these are ad hominem arguments. Never mind that the facts are usually distorted beyond recognition. Never mind that authentic Christians invariably admit their own sinfulness, and the sinfulness of their Church. What is perplexing is how anyone can jump from the problem of human sinfulness to an atheist conclusion, as if God's existence depended upon man's perfection. Huh?

Another tack is that of science; it is suggested that scientific advances have made religion obsolete. The mysteries that in the past confounded man and made him turn to religion are now within our grasp; we have only to discover via the scientific method that which we still do not understand. But this is also childishly simplistic, and wholly unscientific. Science can only concern itself with empirical data, with the observable traits of matter and energy. Science can never address such non-material realities as love, truth, or beauty. It is obviously beyond the competence of science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

On and on it goes. Turns out, atheism appears to be the fragile and irrational system, depending upon blind, unthinking adherence. If there is an atheist out there who can present a cogent syllogism for his system of thought, I would love to hear it, I really would. If I could convince myself that God was just the invention of humans, life would become much more convenient. I could make up my own rules, readily justify my own behavior, and, best of all, condescendingly pity those poor foolish believers. Trouble is (sigh!), the sheer illogic of this idea stops me every time.

Pseudo-atheism

The fool hath said in his heart, no God.
  -Ps 14:1 [KJV]*

Public professions of atheism are becoming more common. In many cases, they are also becoming much more militant, demanding prohibitions against religious activities, the removal of religious symbols and names, etc. Moreover, a number of books have recently appeared that could be characterized as atheistic evangelism, seeking to win the minds and hearts of their readers over to atheistic beliefs and values.

Such atheistic activism strikes me as highly oxymoronic. How so? Glad you asked...

If I were convinced that God did not exist, I'm not sure what shape my priorities and values would take, but they would definitely pertain to this life on earth. I might be concerned with a peaceful home life, or a safe neighborhood. I might focus on earning a comfortable living, or staying as healthy and fit as possible. I might be interested in acquiring fame or political influence. But if I knew that God did not exist, I would definitely not be pursuing any other-worldly or spiritual goals.

I might secretly envy believers' faith, or I might snicker at their simple-mindedness. I might even despise them for their foolishness. But I can't see why I would want to bother to interfere with their religious practices. As long as I am not adversely affected by it, why should I care? Display all the religious symbols that you want, and I will happily ignore them.

And why on earth would I try to convert believers over to unbelief? What would be my motive? The motive for Christian evangelism is the hope of salvation beyond death, to avoid Hell and gain Heaven, and to help others to do the same. Without this eternal, other-worldly dimension, Christian evangelism makes no sense. Thus, atheistic 'evangelism' makes no sense, either.

Ergo, the kind of evangelism and activism we are witnessing cannot reasonably be ascribed to true atheism. Ah, but perhaps what we have here is pseudo-atheism. Perhaps what we are seeing is an increasing number of militantly active people who realize that God does indeed exist -- and who hate Him.

*The KJV actually reads thus:
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
with the words 'There is' italicized to indicate that they do not appear in the original, but were added by the English translators. Think about it.

Epistemology - Part 2

OK, back to the epistemology theme (see my first epistemology post below )...

Virtually every system of knowledge begins on an a priori basis, that is, with one or more unproven or self-evident principles. For instance, the entire system of mathematics begins with the concept of quantity. Given two piles of rocks, it is observed that there is a difference between the two piles - namely, that one pile is bigger, one smaller. To account for the concept of quantity, of more-ness and less-ness, man starts counting things and measuring things, and before you know it, he's calculating the distance to the moon.

As another example, scientific thought rests upon the unproven assumption that the stuff of our universe behaves in a predictable and reliable manner, that there are physical laws at work. Man sees things fall, comes to recognize and formulate the law of gravity, and before you know it, he's explaining how the moon orbits Earth. The assumption isn't as obvious here; it must be taken almost on faith that the universe behaves according to certain laws. There's no particular reason that this should be so; the universe could just as well behave in a haphazard and capricious manner. As Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible".

Well, then, are the principles of science worthless because they are based upon an unprovable assumption? Of course not. Having begun with an act of faith in the reliability of physical laws, we eventually come to have tremendous evidence to bolster this faith. The accumulated wealth of knowledge serves us very well, and does a wonderful job of explaining how things work. The pieces fit together, it all makes sense, there is internal consistency, and it seems to conform remarkably to reality as we experience it. We may therefore with good reason assume that the original assumption was valid.

Now consider the various systems of theological thought, also based upon unprovable assumptions. Oh, there are proofs for the existence of God, but these rest upon the a priori assumption that there is such a thing as provable truth. The nihilist rejects this assumption, and so he sees no proof. Of course, the nihilist is likewise starting from an a priori position which defies proof. There seems to be no other way; you have to start with an assumption of some kind, and forget (for now) about proving it.

So i begin with some assumptions, then see where that takes me, what system of thought can be built upon the assumptions; that will be my proof. I might start with the atheistic assumption that there is no god, and build a system of thought upon that assumption. In such a case, i find myself forced into a purely materialistic and nihilisitic system, one that does not explain or even consider such spiritual concepts as justice, love, or good vs. evil.

If i try the theistic assumption, that God exists and cares for us, i can at least begin to build a system that explains something of the meaning of life, that also incorporates the idea of good and evil, and the moral dimension of human life. Because this results in a better system of thought, i think that the starting assumption must be more sound.

At this point i would like to know more details about this God, and more about how we ought to live. This calls for a creedal system, in which the details are fleshed out. Of the major creedal religions, Christianity stands out for a couple of reasons. First, because it confirms and completes another major creedal system, that of Judaism. Secondly, it makes the fantastic claim that God has been here in person. This claim must either be debunked or be recognized as the most complete revelation possible. More on that shortly.

Likewise, within Christianity, one particular system stands out, that of Catholicism. Firstly, it possesses the most credible historic claim to being the one church going back to the Apostles, founded by Jesus Himself. Secondly, because it has the most trustworthy epistemology, the most solid authority.

The epistemology of Bible-based Christianity is pretty solid, and fairly trustworthy in its adherence to the authority of the Bible, but there are some problems here. For one thing, the existence of several thousand denominations, all claiming to be Bible-based, is evidence that this approach is prone to errors. Like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31), how can the believer know which interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, unless there is some reliable authority to guide him? Secondly, the Bible itself doesn't teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is all you need. Indeed, it points to the Church as the 'pillar and bulwark of truth' (1 Tim 3:15 RSV). And even if Scripture did proclaim Scripture as the only source of revelation, that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it? No, the one fundamental doctrine that the Fundamentalists left out is that Christ built His Church upon the Apostles, and that He gave His authority to them, which remains a clear mark of His Church today.

Note that this authority does not preclude the obvious sinfulness of many priests, bishops and popes throughout history. Authority does not depend upon sanctity. (Indeed, the fact that the Church survived all her corrupt popes and bishops, and never lost the Gospel, can be seen as evidence of divine protection.)

So, i start with these assumptions: God exists, and reveals Himself to us in the person of Jesus who gives authority to men, thus establishing the Church. This produces a system of thought that answers an amazingly wide berth of life's questions, and answers them in an internally consistent way that makes sense of life, and corresponds extremely well to the realities around me. The Catholic system addresses not only specifically religious questions, but also issues of economics, politics and other things touching the demands of faith and morals. If anyone can come up with a more complete system of thought, i would truly love to hear about it. For now, this seems to be by far the best game in town, and explains why i am Catholic.

To return now to the startling assumption that forms the basis for all Christian faith - that Jesus is, in fact, God in the flesh - what to say about that? The veracity of this claim would seem to be tied to the Resurrection. If that man who was crucified really did rise victorious from the grave, then he must be taken seriously indeed, and not merely as a good teacher. Power over death would certainly seem to indicate a superhuman nature. If Jesus didn't really rise, then he was just a man, the whole thing is fool's work, and i would have to reject the Christian way, probably reverting to a creedless theism. I would be left to explain why the early disciples were all so willing to suffer death by martyrdom for a hoax, and i would still have to admit that the Christian system of thought blows the theistic system out of the water. But it needs to be said that, without the Resurrection, the Christian Faith makes no sense at all.

It comes down, then, to this: I have very strong intellectual reasons for embracing the Catholic Faith; other systems of thought simply pale by comparison. But in the final analysis, it still has to be a step of faith. I believe Jesus really rose from the dead, and so i am Catholic.