Ongoing Dialogue with Matt, an atheist

I'm so excited to start the Ongoing Dialogue post with my friend Matt! He is my college roommate's husband, and he is an atheist who is kind enough to come to the Bubble and debate the concept of Truth and see where that leads. You all are welcome to join in or just read along, and if you would like more information about what we are doing, read this previous post.

Matt and I agreed to start by putting out an "opening statement" about Truth, and we did not consult each other when writing our statements. We will use these thoughts as a springboard as we jump into the comment box.

First, my thoughts on Truth:

For the purposes of this conversation, when I speak of "Truth", I am not talking about subjective truth, such as whether you prefer red wine to white, or what you think of grandma's new hairdo. 

I am talking Objective Truth. Truths that are true no matter what you or I think.  

Truth cannot contradict itself. So, it's either true that murdering innocent human beings is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that rape is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that God exists, or it's not. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth" on these types of issues. 

Objective Truth exists outside of ourselves and will remain true even if the whole world doesn't believe it. Truth is not ours to determine, it is ours to seek and find and receive.  

Believing doesn't make something true. But, if something is true, it is right to believe it. 

Truth is what is real. 

Truth would exist even if we didn't. 

Now, Matt's opening thoughts on Truth:

Leila, thanks for your kind words and the invitation to square off with you on your blog. The question of what "truth" is, and how we know or trust that something is true, is of course a topic that philosophers have gone back and forth on for thousands of years. But in simplest terms, I think I'd say that something is true if "it conforms to a fact in reality". C. S. Peirce noted four methods of deciding what is true: tenacity (we're just comfortable believing it), authority (we're told to believe it), a priori, or the scientific method. I don't believe there's a legitimate supernatural method for this.

Thanks, Matt! I like that we both agree that truth is what is "real".

Okay, my first question to start the dialogue is below in the comments, and please remember that I do not expect either of us to change the other's mind, nor am I looking for consensus. Here is the philosophy of the discussions on this blog, for those who might be new:

The Purpose of My Blog

Don't forget to subscribe to the comments so that you don't miss any of them (they will come straight to your email address), because once we hit 200 comments, things get messy on Blogger, unfortunately. In the meantime, hopefully we will all learn a lot through this respectful dialogue!


*We cut it off after 220 comments (to time-consuming to load the last 20), so continue with the discussion, here.

Comparing the old and new atheists: My interview with Dr. Kevin Vost, Part II

Hooray! Back to more with Dr. Kevin Vost, as he explains some of the differences between the old atheists and the new atheists. Catch up with Dr. Vost's first question and answer, here, at Part I.

"Superman" (Nietzsche) and "The Angelic Doctor" (Aquinas)
Art by Theodore Schluenderfritz

My second question:


Q.  So, did you understand those philosophical principles back when you were a practicing atheist, or are you classifying your beliefs in retrospect, looking back as a Catholic? I ask because one of the things that struck me in your book (which squares with something I've heard Fr. Barron say) is that although the older atheists, i.e., the existentialists, had some real intellectual depth, the new atheists don't have knowledge of the great philosophers, have no real understanding of the depth of wisdom and thought throughout the ages. It's like the new atheists are not connected to anything, or somehow do not work in reason and logic in the same way the old atheists did. Do I have that right?


A. I believe you (and Fr. Barron) hit the nail on the head. I sometimes tell people I couldn't have been pulled away from the faith by the "new atheists" because 1.), I'm too old, and 2.), I knew a little philosophy. It was the older atheists who had some sense of intellectual history who lured me away from the faith. Bertrand Russell was an eminent philosopher himself. Ayn Rand, who rarely gave credit to predecessors, wrote that her philosophy was the natural development and fulfillment of Aristotle's. (Because of that influence, unlike almost all other prominent atheists who are relativists, Rand believed in objective truth. Hence, she called her system "Objectivism.")  Psychologist Albert Ellis acknowledged that his vastly successful system of Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy found its origins, not in modern psychological theory and research, but in the philosophy of the ancient Greek and Roman Stoics. So, the folks who pulled me toward atheism saw their connection with the great ideas of the past, but saw their role as developing them further. They also led me to read the great ancient thinkers themselves. It did not hit me fully until decades later that those great foundational pagan thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius) were not  atheists. Though they did not know Christ, their reasoning led them toward belief in God.

So, when I left the Church, I did come to believe those four key ideas I laid out and I thought I grasped their principles. Still, it did not occur to me until the last year or so, to lay them out that way in how they relate to four key areas of philosophy.

As for the "new atheists" who are popular today, when I've read their books I've been stunned by their lack of awareness or acknowledgement of the wisdom of the past. They seem to think reason came into the world when they attained their own reasoning capacity in their own teenage years. I remember in 2010 when an atheistic group put up an anti- Christmas billboard in New York, their message included a phrase about their group being "reasonable since 1963." I thought I'd like to see a billboard from the Catholic Church stating "reasonable since 33."

I find a huge intellectual hubris or overweening arrogance among some of the new atheists.  They dismiss religion despite the slimmest acquaintance with religious history and its philosophical and theological underpinnings that have the deepest roots in human intellectual history. Ironically, at the same time, they promote the idea that truly smart and well-educated people do not believe in God. Forgive me for quoting myself, but I summed it up this way in From Atheism to Catholicism: "How grand it must be to so confidently declare that the profound questions which so taxed the greatest minds in human history are mere child's play for one's own."

This is not to say that there are not some philosophers among the new atheists, or that their ideas are not influenced by philosophy (whether or not they are aware of it.) Their ideas, however, are influenced by modern philosophy, the philosophy of the last several hundred years that neglected or misunderstood the perennial truths of Aristotle and St. Thomas. These ideas led to materialistic, mechanistic views of the universe with so many inconsistencies and problems that modern-day philosophers are rarely heard in the public square. They embrace what Blessed Pope John Paul II described as a scientism -- an impoverished view of reason that seeks truths in the material realm, ignoring the spiritual and ethical dimensions of reality. (For those who would care to look any deeper into the problems of modern philosophy, I recommend Mortimer Adler's Ten Philosophical Mistakes, and Edward Feser's Aquinas, as well as JPII's Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason.)

Interestingly, as for as this intellectual pride or hubris among the new atheists, the greatest thinkers in the history of humanity took an opposite approach and arrived at the opposite conclusion. Pick up the writings of Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas, and without fail, you will see that whenever they address an important issue, they begin with a careful and accurate survey of what others before them believed, before they apply their reason (and Scripture for St. Thomas), weigh the pros and cons, and arrive at their conclusions. Neither believed that reason entered the world the day that he was born!


Dr. Vost's words remind me of a post that I have had in draft form for months, from an exchange I had with some "new atheists" on another blog. I think I might finally dust it off and publish it next, as it really is an illustration of what he just said.

Stay tuned!

Is Christian love "gibberish"?

Busy week here with little time to write! This post originally ran on January 24, 2011, comparing the atheist view of love with the Christian view.

+++++++

It's clear from comments on this blog that there are two very different views of love: The Christian view and the secular/atheist view.

The cultural shift from the Christian view to the secular view has been steady -- and troubling. In past posts, I've asked atheists "What is love?" and the answers and discussions have been fascinating. Here are some thoughts on love from our atheist readers:


To me, love is a human emotion and doesn't have a 'meaning', any more than other human emotions like euphoria or anger or curiosity or whatever. 

Just as I painted the walls of my master bedroom blue because it is my favorite color and makes me happy, I am married to my husband because he makes me happy as well. 

I think that the feeling of "love" is what sets marriage apart from any sort of close friendship you might have with someone else, so once it is gone, there is no longer any point in staying with that person.

I absolutely would equate love to "chemical reactions in a brain that was randomly created and has the basic effect of making us feel good." 

I don't think that I chose to love [my husband]. I think my love for him is one of those crazy chemical reactions, and not something that I picked for myself. I would say that love is something you "have" for someone, not something you "do" or "choose."

[Love is] a very special emotion. 

[Love for a child is] due to a biological desire to care for your young [and] has no higher meaning than that.

Love is an emotion...associated with hormonal changes, physiologic changes, rapid heart rate, deep emotion, glad feelings, sad feelings, satisfaction, anxiety. Not under voluntary control necessarily.

I appreciate and respect the honesty of my atheist readers. This is how I would sum up their position, and they should correct me if I have it wrong:

Secular view of love = involuntary emotion; random chemical reaction; biological response; transitory; a feeling you "get", not something you "do".

Let's switch gears and look at the Christian understanding of love:

Christian love is an act of the will. 

Love is a choice.
Love is a deliberate decision.
Love is willing the good of the other.
Love is an outpouring of self ("self-donation") to the other.
Love is an offering; in other words, a sacrifice.

Love is not a feeling, although feelings do accompany love. Sometimes those feelings are ecstatic, blissful and peaceful, and sometimes they are excruciating, agonizing and raw. At other times, there are no feelings at all.

What a relief and a freedom that true love is dependent on the will alone! Imagine the possibilities: While our emotions are not always within our control, our decision to love always is. This makes us capable of loving our enemies (or a cranky spouse, a defiant child, a nasty neighbor). It made the saints capable of loving their executioners. (Think about that for a minute!!)

Christian love is not transitory, self-interested and fleeting, but rather transcendent, transformative, and eternal.

We are told (and shown) by Christ that the greatest love is to lay down one's life for another. This is no "good feeling" or "chemical reaction" -- it is a choice and an act, a willful offering of one's whole self.

When I recently wrote about the sacrificial nature of love, one atheist reader responded with a single word: "gibberish"

Gibberish? Really? 

But which view of love do we all yearn for? Is it the view that says "My love for you is based on an involuntary good feeling I get from you, and once the feeling is gone, so am I"? Or is the one that says "My love for you is based on an irrevocable decision to put your good ahead of my own, even at the cost of my own life"?

Which love do you want? 

I don't really have to ask. We were all made to love and be loved, not to use and be used. In the depths of our souls, we know this. Every one of us knows this. 

And it's not gibberish -- it's a clear, understandable, harmonious love song, straight to the heart.

An atheist's view: Miss Gwen goes to Mass! *UPDATED

*For some reason, Gwen's last paragraph, summing up her thoughts, was missing when I first posted! So sorry!

A few posts back, one of our longtime Bubble family members, Miss Gwen, announced that she was going to be attending a Catholic mass. After receiving a steady (dare I say giddy?) stream of encouragement, direction and advice from the Catholics here, she set off. You have all been waiting patiently, and I am thrilled now to post Gwen's account of her recent attendance at a daily mass in Albuquerque. I will leave her words unedited, and we all can discuss and offer any clarity in the comment box. 

Take it away, Miss Gwen!

Why I went:
On the heels of much intense debate and banter between orthodox Catholics and atheists, I decided to step back, reflect and visit the holy space where these faithful women share their deepest desires and insecurities with God on a regular basis.

My background:
Believe it or not (ha!), going to church was a big deal for me. I was raised by atheists and can count on my hand the number of times I’ve been to Church services on a holiday or Sunday (3x). That’s excluding the daily mass I attended for two years at Episcopal middle school (aged 12-14). Thus, it is a bit daunting at first to step into a sacred space without knowing the exact details of appropriate behavior. For instance, the parishioners with whom I attended Mass all entered the Church and before taking a seat, kneeled before the altar and crossed themselves.

The Church (San Felipe de Neri church in Old Town, Albuquerque, NM):
This church has quite a history! It was originally built in 1704 at the insistence of a Franciscan priest who arrived with 30 other Spanish settler families in this southwestern city in 1704-5. The church was named after the Viceroy of New Spain but later, at the request of the Spanish Duke who founded and lent his name to this particular city the Church was named after San Felipe de Neri in honor of King Phillip of Spain. Parts of the church have been destroyed or re-built. In the 1870s Jesuit priests founded a school for boys and in the 1880s the Sisters of Charity added a convent to the church grounds and operated a parish school up until the 1970s. A school still operates within this historic parish.

The Scene:
The Church is located in what is now a tourist hot spot of town. It faces a small plaza where there are annual events such as Santero markets*, Christmas shop and strolls with luminaria displays **, music and dancing, and the occasional wedding. Surrounding the plaza and Church are restaurants and stores that cater specifically to visitors in the southwest: chile spices, mugs, t-shirts, turquoise jewelry, cowboy boots, and so forth. A small store attached to the Church sells religious iconography that helps raise funds for the parish.

* Santero-artisans who carve figurines of saints usually working with wood
** Luminarias-paper bags filled with sand and candles, usually lined up along walkways and rooftops during Christmas (this tradition also has roots in the Catholic and Latino Protestant practice of Las Posadas which pays tribute to the journey of Joseph, Mary and Baby Jesus in utero)

The Service:
I attended Wednesday Mass at 7am. There were about 20-30 people in attendance many of them (my guess) Hispanic, mostly female and between the ages of 40-70. I noticed one elementary aged schoolgirl in attendance with a male relative (dad?). Attending to the needs of the priest was a middle-aged man (of Asian heritage) wearing a polo shirt and khaki pants (no altar boys?). Mass began with a prayer followed by a short reading from one of the parishioners. Then the priest gave a brief interpretation of the reading; the gist of his interpretation focused on translation and the multiple possible meanings for the word “apostle” and exactly what Paul really meant when he spoke those words since there are 12 apostles and he isn’t one of them (?). The scene from the reading involved Paul talking to a slave who wasn’t really a slave just as Paul is not really an apostle. The Priest reminded us that none of us know the historical Jesus, just like Paul didn’t know the historical Jesus yet here he is calling himself an apostle -- why? According to the priest, this is because Paul is using a code word for follower -- he is a follower of Jesus and God, just like we all must be.

Then the man in khaki pants rang a bell, and helped the priest get the communion wafer and cup of wine ready. He raised the hosts over his head, uttered some Latin phrases and everyone in the congregation responded with some more Latin. People began singing a song in Spanish about “benedicion” and lined up to receive the hosts. When that was done, the bell was rung one more time and the priest finished up the leftover wine before wiping down the cup (glad to know there’s no wasting wine ; ) Another prayer was said then the apostle’s creed (which I actually remembered!) and we were done.

So, what do I think? I think sacred space provides an opportunity to reflect, to think deeply about one’s place in the world. I’m not particularly comfortable in a church setting since it’s not something I’m familiar with but I appreciate the sense of community that can be created and the opportunity to feel inspired and refreshed with a new outlook on the daily grind. Unfortunately, I disagree with much of the policy touted by the Catholic Church. My understanding at least from this blog, is that one must be conservative and politically aligned with the right (or right of center) in order to be Catholic and Christian. I’m not willing to give up my alliances with left of center political ideologies or my philosophy. So, while I can appreciate the ritual aspects of Mass and the time for self-reflection, I’ll continue to find solace in my own sacred spaces and rituals (i.e., sitting on the patio by the apricot tree drinking coffee spiced with cardamom!).

Thank you Leila, for allowing me the opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

-Gwen








.

Human Dignity, a reminder

Back on February 23, I published the following post. I wrote it in response to the discussions we were having at the time, about the "hook-up" culture. But in light of the homosexual/atheist discussions we've had lately, I thought I'd offer it again as a reminder.

The great conversation continues about the "hook-up" culture, a culture that I contend is the natural result of the the sexual revolution and modern feminist philosophy. I want to thank Complicated Life for making an excellent point during a discussion of sexual purity:

Sexual purity is rightly to be valued and honored, but it is not the source of a woman (or man's) self-worth. We have worth because of our human dignity. Sexual purity is proper to our DIGNITY as human persons; a dignity that is inherent in being a person.

This cannot be stressed enough: No one has to earn or apply for human dignity. Not the unborn, not the elderly, not the disabled, not the mentally ill, not the hardened criminal. Not anyone. No one has to prove his innate value. Human beings have value simply because we exist. Our dignity is inherent.


Are you a nasty gossip? You still have human dignity.
Are you a lazy slob? You still have human dignity.
Are you a lecherous creep? You still have human dignity.
Are you a greedy corporate raider? You still have human dignity.
Are you an unrepentant serial killer? You still have human dignity. 


Do you feel like the most worthless, unloved, unknown person on the planet? It's not true. You are worthy, loved and known. And you have human dignity.


But why? 


Because human beings were made in the image and likeness of God. It's that simple. 


It's true that we can speak against our human dignity, we can act against our human dignity, we can deny or denounce our human dignity, but we cannot erase it or change the reality of it.


Pope Benedict XVI said it beautifully:

We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

You are not a random product of chance. You are not a fluke. You are not here by accident, just waiting to go "poof" into non-existence someday. You are known. You were planned. You exist because Someone wanted you to exist. 

As I've said before and will continue to say, you were made to love and be loved.

And if you understand what true love is, and Who true love is, you will never doubt your own human dignity again, and you will begin to live as a child of God.

Random Thoughts (since I missed Quick Takes!)

Forgive me, Jen! I can't seem to time my Quick Takes to run every Friday. So, here I go with some thoughts after an interesting week:


1. You've probably already read it, but I have to recommend the following blog post at Bad Catholic for being the best post of all time:

Y'all Suck at Sinning

And it's true! My goodness, if a person's gonna relish in and glorify mortal sin, at least do it well! Seriously one of the most refreshing, funny, and original posts ever.

2. In the aftermath of the attacks on Stacy by atheists on her blog, I got a taste of the left's "tolerance" for Catholics who dare speak the unchanging moral truths taught by the Catholic Church and the orthodox of every major world religion. Here's a short and representative excerpt from a lengthy dialogue I had with a gay atheist who emailed me:

[You] cause harm to LGBT families & your children & you don't care.


That makes you an evil person.


And at the end of the day, LGBT will receive full rights, despite your bigotry or your attempts to prevent us from receiving it.


And guess what else, throughout this whole conversation, you've caused me stress & you've hurt my feelings because this is hatred.


You hurt my feelings & you hurt the LGBT community.


You are a bad person. So catholic, indeed.

See, I believe that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual, and by saying so I hurt this man's feelings. I caused him stress. Therefore I am a "hater" and a "bigot", a "bad" and "evil" person. Oh yeah, and he called me a "whore" too, because that makes sense.

Ah, the "tolerance" of the tolerant left! Ya gotta love it!


3. Which leads me to my most oft-quoted quote of the week, from Archbishop Charles Chaput:

We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty -- these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.

Let me flesh it out a bit: Virtues are always good. We want always to be charitable, just, merciful, prudent, honest, etc. But tolerance does not fit that mold, because we know that tolerance is not always good. If some Germans tolerated the evil of the Holocaust, was that good? Was that virtuous? Of course not. If a nation tolerates slavery or abortion, is that a good thing? No way. So, tolerance is not an absolute good in that way that a virtue is. In fact, tolerance can become an evil in itself. The virtues never could.


4. So, modern feminists say they love strong women. But how do they feel about this strong, intelligent, beautiful young woman? Anne Marie Dust fought "the man" at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing and won. She is a role model for courage and fortitude, and for the sheer joy she exudes. Feminists, do you cheer her on, or do you condemn her as a traitor to your gender? I'm seriously asking.





5. Speaking of the Culture of Death (which we were… didn't you watch the video?), check this out:

Study: Nearly a Third of All Episcopal Parishes in the US to Close

Talk about the Culture of Death proving itself! From the article:

A new study of the state of the 2.3 million Episcopal Church in America has found that a third of the 6,825 parishes in the U.S. have an average Sunday attendance of 40 or less and one of the main reasons cited for the decline is the consecration of an openly homosexual bishop in 2003.

It's really no surprise that living by the tenets of the anti-life culture (contraception, abortion, active homosexuality, euthanasia) leads to, well, death. The death of a very liberal denomination in this case. Many bewildered Episcopalians who still believe in the Christian Gospel are coming home to the Catholic Church, and those "progressives" who are left will become indistinguishable from the secular culture, just like the Episcopal Church itself.

6. Speaking of Anglicans (well, we were speaking of their American brethren, the Episcopalians!), I love this quote from Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman:

"Good is never accomplished except at the cost of those who do it, truth never breaks through except through the sacrifice of those who spread it." 

And Newman knew a thing or two about cost and sacrifice. What a humble, holy man and a towering intellect.

7. Speaking of Catholic heroes and saints in Britain (we were, you know!), go right this very minute to your netflix account and put A Man For All Seasons at the top of your queue. In 1966, this astoundingly good movie won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director.

In the midst of his charming diatribe, the gay atheist (of #2 above) told me that "the Catholic Church telling King Henry VIII that he couldn't divorce*, causing him to break away from the Catholic Church" was "one of humanity's best moments." And a commenter from Britain called "gayatheist" (who advocates removing children from Catholic homes) opined that radical Islamists "might come after the catholics with any luck... Finish what Henry VIII started. Lol." 

So for those who want to see "one of humanity's best moments" (but not in the way that our atheist friends think) be sure to watch A Man for All Seasons and compare the actions and character of St. Thomas More to those of his former best friend, Henry VIII.

Enjoy!




*Henry VIII was actually seeking an annulment, not a divorce. But why let a little thing like a fact interrupt a perfectly good anti-Catholic screed?  ;)

Meaning and purpose: Answering "Choice", Part Two

What a difference a few days make! When "Choice" and I first went head to head, it was a tad adversarial. But since then, we have come to a place of mutual respect. I am engaging her here again, and this time it's amicable. :)

Choice's words are in red italics. My thoughts are in blue.

I told Choice that an atheist would have to believe that, in the end, life is absolutely meaningless. 

She responded:

Meaningless in your sense of the word, perhaps. But I think you’re deriving your meaning from your religious view of the world, no? [I'm thinking of objective meaning as opposed to subjective meaning.] Central to your belief system is the faith that there is something bigger than what tangibly exists in this world and that after this life, we go on to that bigger place. [I'd say that it's as much about our origin as our destination.] And that’s fine. But just because my viewpoint lacks that particular outcome doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. It just means it doesn’t fit into your idea of meaningfulness.


[She then quoted me]: “So to me, it's as if the atheist is living life based only on feelings. There is nothing else, nothing lasting or objectively true.”


This kind of puzzles me. First, you say the atheist is living life based on feelings. Actually, the atheist is living life based on what is seen, felt, heard, demonstrated empirically, and known to be true. It is the religious who are living based on faith, based on that which cannot be seen, heard, or empirically proven. I’m not saying one approach is objectively better or worse than the other, but it just kind of startled me that you said the atheist is living life based on feelings. 


I can see why you would think that, but I want to challenge you on that a little further down in the post….

Secondly…why does there have to be something ”else”? Why isn’t the earth and the beauty of nature and the intricate interconnectedness of life systems and the AMAZING displays of science enough? 


But enough for whom? 


You are a First World, educated woman with good food to eat and nice clothes to wear, decent health care, and freedom of speech and movement. As an educated American, you are of the world's privileged class. You have the leisure time and resources to study all the beauty and intricate interconnectedness around us, because you are not busy trying simply to survive. You will no doubt enjoy a relatively comfortable, terror-free, famine-free, war-free existence before you go "poof" and cease to exist. 


But what of the suffering child in Africa? What meaning does her life have if she cannot extract all the goodness and beauty of life and the universe? If she cannot see and enjoy its interconnectedness because she can barely see or think past her starvation and disease? Who is she? Is she anyone? And if so, how? Why? Those questions are not rhetorical. I really want to know. And I don't mean "What is her potential?" nor do I want a list of what we can do (or aren't doing) to help her. I want to know what her meaning and worth is right now in her abject suffering.


And it’s incredibly lasting, because it continues on long after I’m gone, and supports many more generations of life. 


With all due respect, so what? How is length of time (or whatever "lasting" means) significant here? If we all go poof in the end, so what if things last for a while after you are gone? Why are “generations of life” ultimately important or purposeful in your worldview? It all means nothing in the end, when everything is gone. And no one cares. And you were no one. And neither was anyone else. You and I and everyone were accidents of a mindless cosmic burp, and nothing of any of us will be left behind to show for it. 


And it’s objectively true, because I can see it and if I so choose, I can study it and prove its postulates.

Last summer, I posed a couple of questions to atheists. One of them relates to what you just said: 

Atheists believe that "gathering knowledge" and "intellectual curiosity" are important (and I agree wholeheartedly). My question: If your brain is the product of randomness and chance, then why do you trust your brain to give you true information?

Maybe that is a silly question to you, but I would love an understandable answer.

Back to feelings. You said that you don't live your life based on feelings. But when I asked you why we all need to get along if there is no God and no ultimate meaning, you said this:

And why do we all need to get along if there is no God? Because it’s a lot more pleasant for everyone involved. Because I think 90% of people would say it’s more enjoyable and more fulfilling to live in a kind manner and to live in harmony with other people rather than screw everyone else over for selfish reasons. Because wanting to live in a loving community of people isn’t just a Catholic wish. And because moral behavior doesn’t have to be defined by the Bible, it can also be defined by the happiness and fulfillment and contentment that we feel when we exist peacefully as members of a community. 


All the emphases are mine, but I hope you see my point. Your morality is based on how things make people feel, isn't it?


And similarly, when you talked about the "beauty of nature and the intricate interconnectedness of life systems and the AMAZING displays of science", you are again talking about the way those things make you feel, aren't you? You “feel” awe, you “feel” compelled to know more. 


But beyond how the observance and study of these things make you feel, they really have no ultimate purpose, do they? Okay, so things can be demonstrated empirically and shown to be true… but for what end? Why does truth matter? How can truth ultimately mean anything at all, when existence itself is a random accident?

In the comment thread, you said:


I don't feel that my life is purposeless or meaningless because I don't have an omnipotent, omniscient being designing it or guiding it or rewarding me for the good things I do or reprimanding me for the bad things I do. That's not the definition of "purpose" or "meaning" for me.


From what I understand of your position, your life's meaning is derived from … you. You have decided that your life is meaningful, based on the joy and happiness you feel, and the satisfaction you get from your relationships and choices. 


Correct me if I am wrong.


But if I am right about your position, then what of the abandoned baby girl in China, left to suffer and die from exposure? In your opinion, what is the purpose and meaning of her life? What of the nasty old man who has no friends, and whom no one will miss when he dies? What is the purpose and meaning of his life? How about the serial killer? The unwanted unborn child? The brain injured woman who cannot speak or walk? The suicidal teen? 


What is the purpose and meaning of their lives, in the atheist's worldview? Do they have inherent value? If so, what is its source?


I’m not a philosopher. I'm not even sure that these are the right questions to ask. But they're the ones that I can’t reconcile when I ponder the implications of atheism.


So please, help me see. Tell me why your life or anyone's life has any objective purpose, meaning or value. And if you can't say that it does, then what are we left with but feelings and subjectivism?

Question for atheists: Sin

To my atheist readers:

What is your opinion of "sin"? Do you think there is such a thing? If so, what are the criteria?

I see sin all around me, every day.

I also see sin in my own life, all the time.

Do you believe in personal sin?

Thanks. I truly am curious.

A question for atheists: Love

For many years, long before I started this blog, I have been itching to ask questions of atheists. I've been able to do that here over the past few months, and I've learned a lot.

I can assure you, I do not mean to be adversarial. My questions come from a place of complete confusion about how the atheist works through these heady philosophical questions. As I've said before, it makes no sense to me. So, I am looking for an answer that can end my confusion, or even ease it a bit.

I do not mean to disparage any person by asking the question. Atheists, please take this question at face value. If you feel the urge to question my motives, you might want to wait for the next post. Skip this one.

I hope that caveat suffices, and that some nice atheist will come to the Bubble and answer in good faith, giving me the benefit of the doubt. :)

Here is the question:


Dear atheists,

You love your friends, your family, your spouse, your children. I'm sure you would even die for your loved ones if necessary. What, ultimately, is the meaning of love?

If I were an atheist, I know what I would answer. But I want to know from you. I chose my words very carefully. Thanks for being as specific as possible.



PS: If you are going to comment as "anonymous," please give yourself a pseudonym so that we can keep the responses straight.

For atheists, a couple of questions

Dear atheists, 


I desire to understand you. I really do. I am not being sarcastic or flippant when I say that. I don't get you. I try to figure things out so that they make sense to me, and so I have a couple of questions that may seem silly or simple-minded or obvious to you, but I am asking in good faith. They are not trick questions. Here goes:


1) Billions of years ago, the material universe was created when some stuff interacted with some other stuff (chemicals, gases? I don't know... I'm not a scientist so I will defer to you). My question: Where did the "stuff" come from?


2) Atheists believe that "gathering knowledge" and "intellectual curiosity" are important (and I agree wholeheartedly). My question: If your brain is the product of randomness and chance, then why do you trust your brain to give you true information?


Thanks in advance for taking my questions seriously and answering them directly, without tangents.

The logical case for infanticide

So, by now I hope you have done your "homework" and have read the section of the article I directed you to. If not, go ahead and do that now. We will wait.  :)

Some sick stuff, isn't it? What Professor Peter Singer proposes should shock the consciences of decent people everywhere. After all, he advocates the right of parents to kill their children after birth:

Infants lack [characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness]. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. {Singer is referring to animals, which he believes to have more rights than infants.}

and

[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

So here's the part that may surprise you (although a lot of you picked up on this, too): My overriding thought was that Singer’s argument is logical! Check it out:

[I]n discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. 

In other words, he is saying that if abortion is okay, then so is infanticide. It’s the only logical stance, and he’s right. He is showing us where moral relativism leads.

Singer is a consistent, honest liberal who understands the implications of his beliefs, even calling out other liberals who try to insist that infanticide is fundamentally different from abortion. Instead, he rightly argues that infanticide and abortion are not different in the least, and that birth is an arbitrary line drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a distinction where there is none. 

It goes without saying that I do not agree with Singer's premise, and his beliefs repulse me. But his utilitarian, atheistic worldview is clearly stated. Remember how I’ve said that I prefer clarity to agreement? Well, Singer has -- with clarity -- shown us the worldview which stands in opposition to the Christian worldview. 

Liberals talk a lot about compassion and tolerance and love and acceptance, but when their philosophy is played out to its logical conclusion, it doesn’t look so pretty anymore. 

Despite his shocking views (or perhaps because of them), Singer is a darling of the academic left and has received heaps of accolades. However, your average American liberal (i.e. the nice guy next door, or the girl who does your hair) doesn’t have a clue where liberal thought ultimately leads. That is why I am grateful that Professor Singer lays it out and tells the truth.

And that is why I am honestly grateful to Gwen for doing the same. 

It’s so important to keep having the dialogue so people can make an educated choice about which worldview they will adopt. As Pope John Paul II said repeatedly, it is a battle between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. And we really do have to pick a side. Even Singer himself acknowledged this when he said of Pope John Paul II: "I sometimes think that he and I at least share the virtue of seeing clearly what is at stake."

Singer sees it, John Paul II saw it, and we need to see it, too.