The Interior Life of Atheism



Recently I ran a series of articles on The Incoherence of Atheism.

As a result, I've received inquiries for advice from readers with loved ones tempted by atheism.  Not infrequently such inquiries center on what arguments are effective.

This is understandable. Arguments are important.  The existence of God is a philosophical, not a religious question.  My articles focused on a couple of these arguments.  St. Thomas has five.  Peter Kreeft points us to twenty four.  Beyond the purely philosophical arguments, evidence for the supernatural can be culled from every nation, language, people, tongue and religious tradition in the world.

Indeed, one standard rhetorical ploy of atheists is to say, "Christians arrogantly say their God is the true God but all these other religions can also point to claims of the supernatural and Christians denounce those as false.  So why can't I dismiss the Christian claims too?"

Two things are prompted by such an argument.  The first, at the intellectual level, is to point out that the Christian is quite free to believe that every religion in the world has gotten something right (some more than others).  You are even free to believe that adherents of other traditions have had real encounters with the supernatural (whether divine or demonic).  However, if you are an atheist, you have to believe, a priori, that 99.999% of the human race is absolutely wrong about the thing that matters to it most.  Christians have the luxury of being able to be humble before the facts.  When it looks for all the world like the apostles' behavior is best explained by the Resurrection, Christians don't have to resort to lame theories like psychedelic bread mold at the Last Supper to account for it.  When thousands (including atheists) witness the miracle of the sun dancing at Fatima, Christians don't have to attribute it to mass hallucination.  Atheist ideology has to take these desperate measures being constrained to so by its own ideology.

That said, it should also be noted that this tendency of atheism to cling to dogma in the face of countervailing evidence reveals something even more important about the cramped ideology of atheism. 

Consider: the French novelist Emile Zola said he just wanted to see one person dip a cut finger in the waters of Lourdes and be healed.  He got more than he bargained for.  Zola met a woman dying of tuberculosis, whose face had been half eaten away with the disease and who was spitting up blood from her infected lungs.  She washed at Lourdes and was presented to Zola immediately afterward, her face already covered in new, dry skin and her tuberculosis in dramatic retreat.  "Ah no!" said Zola, "I do not want to look at her.  She is still too ugly".  He left declaring, "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle."

 Whatever that is, it is not the voice of Reason.  Rather, it is proof that the artillery of the intellect is subject to the will.  That artillery can be ranged to defend against truth just as much as to defend truth.  For atheism is often, though not always, driven by anger, pain or disappointment.  Atheists (especially former believers) are quite often people who feel betrayed by God and who react by trying to punish him for the abusive relationship they were in, or the treacherous way their pastor dealt with them, or God's failure to live up to their childhood expectations.  Often they have very deep wounds.  And often those wounds are caused by us believers.  Not a few atheists are what they are because a Christian has behaved very badly.  Zola himself may be an example of this.  He was one of the few defenders of a Jewish officer named Dreyfus, who was wrongly convicted of treason and persecuted largely by French Catholics.

Indeed, atheism is a very diverse phenomenon.  Many atheists are, theologically, fundamentalists under the skin often having the most childish and literalistic notions of what Scripture says (Richard Dawkins is an especially egregious example here).  Some atheists are simply confirmed in cold hard pride.  Some are honest people who just can't, for the life of them, see what theists are talking about when they speak of their belief in and experience of the supernatural.  And that just scratches the surface of the various causes of atheism.

So it's important to have a handle, not just on the philosophical and intellectual reasons for theism, but also on this pastoral dimension as well.  Very often, when somebody says, "I don't believe in God" they mean, "I am very angry at someone who hurt me."  If that's the case with your loved one, then the pain beneath the atheistic temptation is the main thing that needs to be addressed.

(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)

Comments

  • Guest

    Do you actually read what people write?

    Or do you go with your own assumptions of what people probably wrote?

    I have repeatedly said *I* understood you.

    But I am observing many that do not – mostly, it seems, because of the arrogance that comes across…your previous post of "Why this is so difficult or obscure to you really astounds me" is only most recent example. 

    In all honesty, I don't think you bother or care what other people understand or are struggling to understand.  Once someone questions what you mean (often in a sincere effort to get to understand what you are trying to say), the charge of MORON! may as well be slapped across their forehead.

    From here on out, I won't try to be helpful here.  Apparently it ain't working anyway.  If you don't want to really try to understand why people are having difficulty, then I guess let the chips fall where they may.

  • Guest

    lpioch: Fine. Why are people having difficulty, you tell me.

    What is so difficult about inderstanding absurd as an accepted category which refers to any object of belief that is contrary to common sense and reason. Take the Incarnation. This is certainly contrary to common sense. It is contary to reason also, no? Of course it is.

     Same goes for the Resurrection, Trinity, trans-substantiation.

    One famous religious philosopher greatly extols the spiritual virtue of believing in these "glorious absurdities"! Further,he claims that he is a believer because of their absurdity.

     

    A well known Catholic theologian, Matthias Scheeben, writes wonderfully about the sublime nature of the Christian mysteries. If you can get your hands on his book, The Mysteries of Christianity, then read his introduction.

    There you will perhaps begin to glimpse the profundity of the absurd and the sublimnity of mystery. Perhaps you will cease being offended by the realization that in God's final and definitive revelation of  Himself to the human race, He could in no way disclose to us what the human mind could, in the end, concoct by its own intellection. Thus He sends us His own reality which infinitely transcends our reason.

    How DARE anyone -the editors on this site especially! – presume to cast these mysteries in the mold of a human rational argument, and worse yet, proceed to castigate and demean those who are not "convinced."

    It is only through sheer grace that we – you included lpioc! – are enabled to stand within and before these mysteries for one second! It is not because of your mind, your heart, your NOTHING. It is grace all the way down!

    When you realize this perhaps you will  cease attacking me in such an insulting and low-life, gutteral and disrespectful manner when at bottom your frustration is due only to your own ignorance, close mindedness, and defensiveness.  

      

  • Guest

    Lwall you wrote: Take the Incarnation. This is certainly contrary to common sense. It is contary to reason also, no? Of course it is.  Same goes for the Resurrection, Trinity, trans-substantiation.

    Not believing in those things would make one a non-Catholic, but it would not necessarily make one an atheist.

  • Guest

    lwall, as I tire of this dialogue, I recall that you replied to an ealier post of mine wondeirng if I too reveled in the sublime absurdity of our Catholic faith. I have to say that I do not revel in your presumed qualities of our faith, be it sublime or absurd.

    I revel in the truth of God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit; in His One, Holy, and Apostolic church.

    Amen and good night.

  • Guest

    Mary, are you misunderstanding Lwall, or am I misunderstanding you?  I don't see him claiming not to believe in the Incarnation, Resurrection, et al.  He seems to believe as strongly as any of us.  I see him claiming that the mystery of faith is quite unreasonable (from a philosophical point of view).  I also hear him insisting that non-acceptance of these irrational beliefs of ours does not make the athiest either willful, ignorant, nor evil.  I happen to disagree with his postion based on the first couple of chapters of Paul's Letter to the Romans (and, probably, my lack of formal training in philosophy), but that's my opinion.  He certainly is welcome to his, isn't he?

  • Guest

    lwall,

    I think we all readily acknowledge that our faith is beyond proof and in some cases, contrary to the senses.  But we all acknowledge that we our beliefs are in fact just that: beliefs.

     

     Atheism too cannot be proven.  If it could, then we could all merely accept it.  However, there are some atheists who believe (wrongly) that they have proven the non-existence of God.  And this makes them incoherent.  Why, because they ultimately have their own faith yet deny it at the same time. 

     

    By the way, I suspect it may be comments like this that people are put off by:

    "Why this is so difficult or obscure to you really astounds me."

    (By the way, I've generally found that if people don't understand what I am trying to explain to them, the fault usually lies in my ability to explain.)

  • Guest

    lwall,

    It is not that the term "absurd" is difficult to understand so much as it carries such a negative connotation in the modern English language.  If you tell someone that something they have said is absurd, then the hair on the back of their neck tends to raise just a bit.  It's all context.  
    By the way, you gave a perfectly acceptable alternative to "absurd" when you said, "This is certainly contrary to common sense."  Even St. Paul would agree with you as has been posted above (the reference "stumbling blocks for the Jews and folly to the Greeks").  
  • Guest

    cooky642,mkochan, and all : Yes! You are correct, Cookey642. 

    Mystery and the absurd are the appropriate characterizations of God's giving of Himself in space time.

    Contrast this literal giving of God's own self in finitude to the prophets,say, Jeremiah. Both the Incarnation and Book of Jeremiah are revelation.

    The later,a verbal translation of some aspect of God's will to the human race and Israel particularly by written word. ( Not to imply that Jeremiah did not also preach.) The messages and texts of Jeremiah are in themselves intelligible. There is nothing inherently unintelligible about the book as words, although the words are inspired by God. The words  can be read and understood more or less, quibbled about, accepted, rejected. There is nothing inherently opaque to the human understanding as words which display a logic, semantic meanings, metaphor, topical as well as escahatological motifs, etc.

    However, when we look at the former – that is, when we turn to God's giving God's Self and not just giving His inspired words to a prophet in space/time – we have now moved into a qualitatively and ontologically totally different entity. We are no longer referring to inspired words reaching a prophet who then sets down these words in writing.

    We are now referring to a paradoxical and unique event and to an ontologically new reality in time – "Behold! I am doing a new thing!"- which is utterly beyond human comprehension.

    It took many years for the early church even to begin expressing in human philosophically adorned theology just what and who Jesus of Nazareth was and is. True then as today, the concepts of hypostatic union, Incarnation, the paradox of the infinite-in-the finite, etc. fall short of rational explanation and theologizing. Yes, we as humans are compelled to theologize about these mysteries, but mysteries they remain all the while.

    That they remain beyond our rational grasp and remain forever mystery is only to be expected of a revelation whose essense is God Himself !  I assume that last statement requires no further explanation from me.

    Further, that mystery perdures even as we attempt to understand and give words to it…this phenomenon of "mystery- remaining -mystery" is salutary for our spirits! 

    The little ray of light we are granted as we participate in mystery ( through prayer, commentary/readings, Mass, and scripture study as prescibed by the Church) is salutary for our spirits. God's mystery as mystery, as something we can never capture, continually attracts and draws us deeper into Him.

    If one is content to express this sublime mystery as a mere pithy formula – " I believe Jesus Christ is God and man", or " I believe Jesus Christ is true God' etc. – and without at the same time realizing the inadequacy of the words uttered, then one thereby robs mystery of mystery! One tacitly assumes by such phraseology that what is at essense beyond human intelligibility can nonetheless be put into rational, verbal formulae. [ To anticipate angry responses surely to come my way, the Creed points to mystery at all points. It is not a static formula to be recited without at the same time bathing in its mystery. ]

    In reciting formulas and proffering them as "reasons to believe" or as" compelling facts" or as enticing tid bits for converting atheists and non-believers, in doing so one at the same time offends his un-believing audience and rightly so. This justified offense and rejection informs much of  Mark Shea's vitriole against atheists. He castigates their unbelief as incoherent, as failing to yield before "the facts", as irrational, willful, ad nauseum. This is a nonsense appraoch and a nonsense intellectual stance. As before stated, it does not serve the faith well. It certainly does not convert. I wish he would change his tune.

    Rather than pithy formulas sans mystery, instead of beating people over the head by uttering unintelligible formulae that actually convince very few people these days, especially the well read, intellectual sorts Mark goes to war against then mercilessly disparages them for "not believing", why not try this on for size :

     " I believe in the Incarnation, that God Himself has given and continues to give Himself to the human race. I know this sounds outrageous. I know it is absurd and beyond all common sense and reason.  It is even outside the expectation of Isreal despite Israel's long awaited "Messiah" and "coming of the Kingdom."  No one in or outside Israel ever anticipated this saving New Reality, this Incarnation/Resurrection/ sacraments/Church. Yet, here I stand in faith, utterly grasped by it,able and willing to let go before its glorious, absurd, mystery. I am totally grasped by it, drawn into it, and forever changed by it……on my knees grateful for it. Come and see." 

  • Guest

    Like I said, that may contrast non-Catholicism, but it does not contrast atheism. I don't know why you bothered to place my name in the salutation of this fine explanation since it in no way addresses the substance of what I have said to you on this board.

    So have you tried this on atheists yourself? How was it received?

  • Guest

    mkochan: I addresed you b/c your last post implied that I had previously suggested that not believing in the mysteries of our faith "makes one an atheist" or somewhow causes one to become an atheist.

    I hope I did not say such a thing, and doubt I did. 

     

  • Guest

    If I could make an analogy of Catholicism to a tree; there are trunk issues and there are branch and twig issues. We often get questions about the trunk and begin to explain the twigs.

    I took Mark Shea's article to be a good reflection on a trunk issue, not that it should be immune to criticism.  But much of the ensuing thread seems to cover several branches and ignore the trunk.

    Talking over peoples' heads is ineffective. You're a smart guy, lwall, you ought not feign such shock and surprise at its ineffectiveness.

    If, as lwall has repeatedly asserted in various ways, the deposit of Faith is "contrary to common sense" to a non-believer, then it leaves us to ponder, "How are we believers to fulfill the Great Commission and spread the Good News to all mankind?"

    Lwall has not told us his view on that, unless I missed it.

    My concern is we end up coming across as saying belief requires some "special gift" or "secret knowledge" which, of course, leads us to Gnostic heresy.

    Jesus says we must become like little children to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So the good news must be able to be grasped and believed at that level. And if so, shouldn't we be able to refute atheism at that level?

    As I posted elsewhere, it reminds me of the argument against movement: Movement is not possible, since you can not move from Point A to Point B, unless you first get to the halfway point, let's call it Point C.  But before you can get to Point C, you must first get to the halfway point, Point D. And so on and so on. There is no end to the number of halfway points, therefore you can never move. But here's the thing – we know that we can, in fact move from Point A to Point B! So whether or not we can rationally refute the argument against it does not matter — we simply know that argument is false. Convincing someone clinging to that argument is as simple as walking across the room with them.

    Back to atheism.  While it is useful to be able to engage the atheist at various points in their familiar arguments, it is more useful to be pastoral. Whether or not we can rationally refute the atheist's argument that God does not exist does not matter — we know that the argument is false. Convincing someone, as I think Mark Shea is saying, is as simple as loving them.

    And as lpioch has said — that is much more difficult. 

  • Guest

    Lwall, when you get a chance you might go back and reread my posts. Just mine — because you are not isolating what I said from the comments of others. I even addressed a specific question to you that you never answered.

  • Guest

    mkochan: What question was that? lpioch: I have never read of Mark's wanting to love ateists into conversion! I think you are reading into himwhat u want. You are imagining things.

    What do u and others think u are objecting to in my posts?

  • Guest

    lwall: I think you are the one reading things into what people write.  NEVER EVER did I say Mark was wanting to love atheists into conversion!

    I am now convinced, the assertions, claims, and annoyances you have with other posters are, in fact, true of you. 

    I do refuse to try to have a conversation with a brick wall.

    I understand you feel that way about us.  But at least we READ what other people actually write.

     

  • Guest

    Here is my post that you did not answer:

    Lwall, you collapse atheism into lack of acceptance of the Mysteries of our faith.  That is not Catholic thought, as has been pointed out by others.  The Church teaches that the existence of God is rationally knowable.  According to Thomas Aquinas, having come to that point, one is left listening for that God to speak, since as you correctly point out anything beyond the mere existence of God requires revelation and cannot be merely rationally known. (However, once one is open to listening to God, listening to the apostolic authority of the Church is a rational step.)

    You say that the Incarnation. Resurrection, Transubstantiation etc. — distinctive truths of our faith — cannot be rationally apprehended. But none of those things are what Mark has been writing about.  He has been writing about atheism simply as rejection of the concept of the existence of God.

    Now if you believe in the Incarnation. Resurrection, and Transubstantiation yourself, since that belief (according to your own argument) cannot have been arrived at rationally, then you must believe in those things because you accept the authority of the Church which tells you they are true. The same Church says that the existence of God is rationally accessible as truth to the human mind. I here repeat a portion of the catechism that was previously posted in this discussion:

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    Do you accept what the catechism says on this matter?

  • Guest

    lwall,

    Please re-read the last paragraph of Mark's article.

    If addressing "the pastoral dimension" [in adddition to the intellectual and rational] is not to be read as loving them, then how are we to read Mark's assertion?

    Do you think he is saying we should lead atheists to a field of green grass?

  • Guest

    mkochan and all : To answer mkochan paragraph by paragraph.

    1. I do not "collapse atheism" into rejection of the Mysterisies. Atheism is a totalitarian rejection of mystery and the very idea of the supernatural. A fortiori, there is rejection of Christian mysteries.

    2. God can not be proven by rational thought. This is clear. God however can be known by the certainty of faith.

    3. I believe because of my personal experience in of Church, Scripture, and sacrament as well as community not because authority. 

    4. Mark rails on mercilessly how atheism is incoherent and other rational category denouncements. I do not think we come to know God and Christ by rational argument.

  • Guest

    I'm sorry to keep repeating myself. Allow me to highlight the quotation from the Catechsim.

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    Do you accept what the Catechism says on this matter? I ask because it sounds to me like you contadicted that when you said: "God can not be proven by rational thought. This is clear. God however can be known by the certainty of faith." However, I could be wrong because by "God" in that sentence you might not be referring to the mere existence of God, but instead to the Christian mysteries. So please do clarify.

  • Guest

    mkochan: By te phrase " natural light of reason" is not meant " by rational proosf." If one reads further in the CC, it becomes clear that "light of reason" refers to a convergence of considerations which together would lead to a cretainty of God's existence. This convergence of say argument from design as with St. Thonmas and argument from morality and beauty are reminisecent of Cardinal Newman's thesis of the same ilk.

    Now it seems crucial not to misread the CC as saying that "light of natural reason" means" a proof" from reasonm as with St. anselm's ontological proof, or Descartes "proofs" in Meditations 3 and 5, or the "proof from design" arguments. Not one of tese so called proofs stands alone as knock down, drag out "proof."

    I think "light of natural reason" as used by CCC also includes what Tillich refers to as " ontological reason" or the " depth of reason", or what  Schleirmacher refers to as "religion as feeling", or what Kierkegaard means by "passion and interiority", and also what the CCC itself refers to by the phrase "longing for the infinite."  

     

    All attempted stand -alone proofs utterly fail.

    There is no sense in hammering people over the head with futile and lame "proofs".

     No sense in denigrating our fellow brothers and sisters ala Shea because upon hearing or even "witnessing" the testimony of the sun dancing at Fatima, they remain unconvinced! 

  • Guest

    Lwall, Shea did not denigrate anyone all he said was that atheists offer a lame reason for a miracles such as the dancing sun and the Resurrection when they resort to "mass hallucination," or "bread mold" as an explanation.  He didn't say anything at all about the atheists who witnessed the dancing sun and weren't convinced, if there were any. He just said that atheists were among the witnesses.

    There is no such thing as a stand-alone proof anyway. No proof is ever offered in that way.  Since atheists are not being presented with a stand-alone proof but instead with life, the universe and the entire panapoly of evidences (what you call "convergence of considerations") and proofs together, their refusal to believe is without excuse and they are morally culpable for it.  On that Scripture is clear, though the exact degree of moral culpablity is, of course, up to God who reads the heart.

    I might add, that since the actions of Christians can wound a soul and turn it away from God, the Bibe is equally clear that we are morally culpable for that as well.

    When you say: "Now it seems crucial not to misread the CC as saying that "light of natural reason" means" a proof" from reason" [emphasis mine], I do not know what you are talking about since I have never heard or read anyone make that claim, nor has Mark ever made it to my knowledge.

    Anyway, thank you for explaining yourself more fully.

  • Guest

    mkochan: Upon re-reading Mark's trilogy I think it will be quite clear that he indeed derogates and denigrates- as in makes black -the beliefs and arguments of atheists and, especially, the beliefs and even the persons of Dennet and Dawkins who, he suggests, might be "mutants doomed to extinction" and "evolutionary dead ends."

    An assortment of barbed quips peppers the trilogy, a trademark of Shea's sophomoric style meant to tickle the ears of a certain readership. Through and through, the atheist position is denigrated by Mark as incoherent and self-contardictory. One might have hoped that Shea is just making a detached and objective analysis from a philosphical perspective as with response/rebuttal papers one hears at meetings, for example. It is abundantly clear that this is not the case! 

    I had previosly responded to tye trilogy by showing point by point how his criticism of the atheist position was itself open to vast criticism since grounded upon metaphysical assumptions that are rightfully up for grabs. I called it then, as I do now, a type of intellectual dishonesty not to have faced that criticism on this site. 

    In short, the text evidence is quite against your contention that "Shea did not denigrate anyone." 

    And this denigration continues in " The Interior Life…"  where atheists are said to exhibit a peculiar tendency to "cling to dogma in the face of counterveiling evidence" which criticism directly followed the paragraph about miracles at Lourdes and the sun dancing at Fatima. Check the text.

     Atheists are said to be "constrained" by their own willful "ideology", that is, to interpret so- called " conterveiling evidence" of miracles and sun dancing by merely naturaistic explanations. He then queries momentarily from whence this tendency of the atheist, and he concludes that "Whatever it [ the tendency] is, it is not the voice of Reason." So again and again the atheist is portaryed as incoherent and irrationallly stubborn before the facts. Is this not a form of denigration?

    And furthermore this "tendency" merely exposes what, for Mark, is the atheist's root problem : their intellect is subjected to an injured, angry, or disappointed will ( disappointed that is by some negative experience of Christianity which is pastorally true and of ?genuine concern for Mark?) . Or else, they just can't hear what the supernatural is all about. Or they are just " confirmed in cold hearted pride."

    mkochan, face the facts please. Be honest. There is unbecoming  denigration going on here.

    Whatever it is you are saying in your post about proofs, I am not sure what you mean. It was you who proffered a CCC quote extolling reason as capable of proving and knowing with certanty God' existence. What did you intend by drawing my attention to this quote if not to rebut my conterclaim that there are no proofs by reason. I gave you examples of "proofs by reason " that fail. What are your examples of proofs that make it?

    Further, you confuse me in first proffering the CCC quote as a challenege and refutation of me, then in your last post withdrawing from your own confidence in proofs, no?  I thought you were going to show me that not only did the CCC contradict me but also that you were going to give me an example of this "certain knowledge" of God through the "light of natural reason" since you stand by the CCC yourself.l

     Do you in fact have such an example from natural resaon? 

    In my state of dizziness about your last two posts, let me at least try to clarify my own perspective: You, Mark, and other posters are quite confirmed, it seems to me, in depicting non-believers as somehow willfully and/or intellectually obtuse as well as spiritually and morally culpabale. Much atheist's "refusal" to believe, according to Shea, ? yourself, and a host of posters, somehow in your opinions has to do with refusing to see the facts and counterveiling evidences. Non-believrs just refuse to accede to rationalility and to proofs.

    I reject that theisis for the reasons I have repeatedly stated, namely, there are no rational proofs of God's existence. Further,I do not think most atheists willfully refuse to accede, or are all morally culpabale, or take their posiiton as atheists because of deep seated anger and hurt. I believe there are very cogent and powerful rational resaons not to believe, and I believe we should be aware of these. See below.

     But the greater force of my rejection of your and others's perspective concerns more importantly the "fact" that our very own Christian beliefs themselvse are patently not susceptible to rational proofs. For the very object of our beliefs transcends reason altogether. Thus the negative reaction of many non- elievers to certain believers repeatedly pounding their heads about proofs, rationality, etc. when our beliefs are, in an important sense, wonderfully absurd. Attempts to paint black – namely,to disparage non-believer's intellect, will, moral sense, etc.ad nauseum – who are not in a state of faith and grace is distasteful and obnoxious. And, as I previously stated, this does not serve our faith nor our evangelical efforts well. It is counterproductive.  

    One last …. CCC 2125 refers to GS 19,3 as diminishing the imputability of atheism as a function of an individuals "intentions" and the "circumstances", where circumstances include the turn-off type of bad witnessing for the faith [ as with the articles posted on this site under our present discussion]. " Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of athesim".  

  • Guest

    Lwall, I was quite clear that no one has claimed that the "light of natural reason" means "a proof" [emphasis mine, but the singular is yours] from reason."

    Also the moral culpability of atheists — which is quite different from that of theists who may not hold to our Chirstian beliefs is no invention of my own, or Mark's, is scriptural, and is Catholic teaching. Imputability cannot be diminished unless there to begin with.

    Hopefully you understand that Mark's articles were not written to "witness" to atheists, but on the substance of your last point we all agree so let's end it there.

  • Guest

    mkochan: sounds goood to me. Have a good rest of the holiday weekend.

Newsletter

Subscribe to the Catholic Exchange Ezine and Newsletter.

The Church Today

Today's Mass Readings

Readings for May 22

Liturgy of the Hours

Daily Divine Office

Words of Encouragement

“Help me think about Heaven, Lord. You are leading me there. You went to prepare me a place there. What will it be like? You came to earth, lived, suffered, and died so that I would have the possibility of…

Pope Benedict's Day

 
May 27th – Pentecost Sunday
Vatican Basilica, at 9:30
PAPAL MASS
Holy Mass
Saint Peter’s Square, at 12:00
Regina Caeli…

Quote of the Day

“It is clear to me that if we wish to please God and to receive graces in abundance from Him, it is God’s will that these graces should come to us through the hands of Christ in His most holy…

Homily of the Day

True followers of Christ

Saint of the Day

St. Rita of Cascia (widow)

Ask a Monk

Spiritual advice from a Benedictine monastery by Brother Sebastian

Online via live chat
M – F: 6:00-6:30 PM EST
Saturday & Sunday: 3:00 – 5:00 PM EST

Offline via Email 24/7/365

Click on the button at any time and Brother Sebastian will respond


Support