Mental Meanderings (Jan. 23, 2019)

Transcription

1 Mental Meanderings (Jan. 23, 2019) Being neither a theologian, nor an apologist, I m not competent to speak with authority on matters theological. However, being a forensic scientist provides me with a modicum of proficiency in arguments regardless of the subject matter. That is to say, forensic assessments are a study of subjects qua articulations; the subject itself notwithstanding. For the past 20 years, I have maintained that atheism is an anti-intellectual position, not a position based on reason. Whereas reasonable men may sit and discuss objective data and reasonably come to different conclusions, one may not perform the same way with an atheist, since the atheist will refuse to look at the data. To quote Peter Kreeft 1 The root of most atheism is not argument, but attitude, not intellection, but feeling, not the love of truth, but the fear of truth. Discussions with atheists regarding matters theological always have the same flavor the atheist has faith that their position is superior, because Christians rely on faith for theirs. In truth, it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian; and a Christian has more objective evidence to support the existence of God, than the atheist has to support their position. A common comment I receive is How can you be a Christian if you profess to be a scientist? And this underscores the current fallacy that there is a conflict between Christianity and science. Those who profess such a conflict generally understand neither science or Christianity. The answer I give is I am a Christian because I am a scientist, not in spite of being a scientist. As a former atheist, evidentiary science is what lead me to believe in God, and ultimately to Christianity, and finally to the understanding that the catholic faith, as understood by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, was the truth (so far as truth may be discerned). I saw on the internet where a chap asked an atheist to provide his best arguments to support the atheistic position. I was intrigued with the six responses presented by the atheist since they contained the same cookie-cutter arguments I have seen expressed by so many cookie-cutter atheists. That is, they all seem to be drawing from the same cookie-cutter playbook, without bothering to consider their positions to any great depth. For my enjoyment, I decided to address each of the atheist's six explanations. I have already addressed the first explanation and that can be found here: The second argument is related to the first, and so to be clear, I have repeated the first argument here as a preface to the second argument: 1 Kreeft P., Christianity for Modern Pagans,(p.28), Ignatius Press, 1993 Page 1

2 Argument #1 "God as conceived by Christianity is not consistent with the evil of this world. You may say free will, but what has free will to do with a helpless baby being born deformed before dying a prolonged and painful death from an inadequatelyformed heart over the course of several days? Then, assuming said baby was not baptized, being plunged into hell (or limbo) for the crime of inheriting original sin?" The atheist s second argument was: Partially a continuation, as a father I would never consider allowing my sons to juggle chainsaws if I were physically capable of stopping them. Yet juggling chainsaws is the smallest of small potatoes when compared to the infinity of fiery torture in hell, yet humanity s Father seems perfectly content to allow naive children to stumble through life without even the vaguest awareness of what could await them at the end of it. This is inconsistent with the notion of a God who cares for us. Response: The argument isn t really an argument at all, but an explanation of what the atheist claims he would do, and based on actions, why there is no God. The explanation provides an interesting and relevant insight into the world view of the atheist who made the statement which indicates that the speaker has never been a parent, or has miserably failed in that capacity, and that he is quite ignorant of the religion he criticizes. Any rational parent knows that a parent cannot conceivably follow their children around for their entire lives saving them from every conceivable physical risk; nor is it even desirable to try. Rather, it is the parent s responsibility to instill into their children the foundation for making good decisions, so that the parent does not need to be there at every moment. To be sure, experiencing pain is an important part of that learning process here are two examples: Revenge of the Pin Cushion When my Daughter was a toddler, she was exploring her surroundings, and came across a big cloth tomato pincushion festooned with sharp pins and needles. She paused and looked at it and then she looked at me and I said one word: Page 2

3 My Daughter looked back at the pin cushion with a considered look in her eye that told me her next move. The first part of my job was done- I gave her all the guidance she needed at that time to make a good choice (obedience). I knew she would now disobey my admonition and make a choice that was not to her immediate benefit; I knew she would reach for the pin cushion. I also knew she would get poked, and experience physical pain, and there would be some crying and probably even be a little bit of blood involved in the upcoming lesson. Was it now my job to physically prevent her from grabbing the pin cushion? Or was it my job to see the larger picture play-out knowing the future held an important lesson that she would draw upon for an entire lifetime? My Daughter grabbed the pin cushion, got multiple needle pokes, and lost a little blood. However, the word No when uttered at the right moment, (especially with a wagging finger), took on a new and profound meaning. And that meaning was that disobedience to a Daddy s admonition would result in immediate and unpleasant consequences. The lesson was so profound, that for quite some time afterwards, my Daughter would walk by the pincushion, wag her finger at it and say No! So, I was perfectly content to allow my Daughter to juggle her own chainsaws at that moment, knowing her choices were going to be formed by the consequences of her actions. Did that make me an unloving Father? Like an Earthly Father, our heavenly Father, God, also gives us guidance, asks for obedience, but allows us to make bad choices, and suffer the consequences of those choices; not because He is uncaring, but because He loves us and can see the larger picture, and hope that we learn from the experience. A Trip to the Doctor The above deals with free will and a freely made choice. But what about the example the atheist gave of the child who died from an heart disorder? What of the terrible deaths due to earthquakes, forest fires, and natural disasters? What of the terrible personal pains and losses each human experiences throughout their lifetimes? Surely a loving Page 3

4 God would step in and prevent those? Surely a loving father would never permit a child to experience pain, let alone force their child to experience pain. And yet When my Daughter was toddler, it was time to receive vaccinations. I knew beforehand the actual process of the injections would be painful. I knew in advance the immediate physiological reactions would involve pain, swelling, and a fever. I knew the trip to the Doctor would be traumatic. I knew all these things, and I also knew that any attempt of rational discourse with an 18 month old kid would be futile. So I took my Daughter to the Doctor for the injections. As expected, my Daughter screamed, and cried, and for the next couple days she was miserable I too was miserable when she was getting the injections and it pained me to see her face as she looked at me, because I knew she knew I could save her from that pain. What kind of a loving Father are you?... her eyes pleaded that you would let this man hurt me like that? Unlike her, I could see the future. I knew the grand scheme. I knew the pain suffered was a necessary detail of vaccination. I knew the short term pain involved was nothing compared to the long term good received. I also knew there was no way her young mind would be able to understand any of this, and from her perspective, I was a mean Father who allowed some stranger to subjected her to pain. She could not conceivably understand my loving motives and the loving outcome exercised by a loving authority. And so it is with us on Earth, whose loving Father in heaven permits us to make bad choices, and permits others to harm us. We can no more understand how the pain we suffer will be to any profit to ourselves than can a child at the doctor or a trusting pet at a veterinarian. So, now, the deconstruction of the atheist s argument:.. as a father I would never consider allowing my sons to juggle chainsaws if I were physically capable of stopping them. It is our job to teach our children not to juggle chainsaws. If, having been given proper and ordered guidance that juggling chainsaws is dangerous, our children insist on juggling chainsaws, there is little in life a parent can do to prevent it. The lesson to be learned will be in the ultimate outcome. We give our children roots and wings by which they may flourish in the fullness of life. Parents who attempt to follow their children around for a lifetime preventing them from getting hurt fail miserably in their efforts and ultimately destroy their own children. Our heavenly Father gives us the ability to learn good lessons, it is up to us then to choose to not juggle chainsaws. Page 4

5 Yet juggling chainsaws is the smallest of small potatoes when compared to the infinity of fiery torture in hell, Hell is full of volunteers. Neither God, nor The Church has ever condemned any soul to Hell. People choose to go to Hell. Exclusively, Hell is occupied only by those souls who, having received proper instruction not to grab pincushions and not to juggle chainsaws, choose to ignore those instructions and juggle chainsaws anyway. If God stepped in and stopped every conceivable pain in your life, you would not be an adopted Son of God, you would be a pet in a cage. yet humanity s Father seems perfectly content to allow naive children to stumble through life without even the vaguest awareness of what could await them at the end of it. Not true. Humanity s Father is perfectly content to allow most of His Children to receive the full grace and knowledge to equip them to make good choices. Because He loves them, He allows them to make those choices out of respect for them. Invincible Ignorance: There is an extremely small portion of the Human population who, by virtue of circumstances not of their fault, never receive such guidance before their death. This would include the multitude of humans who lived and died before Jesus walked the Earth or to whom the knowledge of the hope of salvation was never given, or to those of legitimate diminished intellect that prevented them from receiving such knowledge. The Church teaches that these adopted Children of God are in a state of invincible ignorance, and to them the expectation of behavior is commensurate with the gifts they received in life. As such, they are not deprived of either salvation or the beatific vision. The Protestant notion that people, such aboriginals in the deepest jungles of Africa, are destined to Hell if they are not preached the word of God is a false teaching that is not based in Christian doctrine. These distorted notions are based on the inventions of twisted minds of men like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli who invented their own brands of religion that placed themselves in the middle of worship. This is inconsistent with the notion of a God who cares for us. God, the Father, so loved Man, his creation, that He sent His very own Son, Jesus, who was innocent of all sin, and blameless in all ways, to the Earth to be humiliated, beaten, tortured, and brutally murdered upon a cross. Passersby at the time expressed the same argument as today s atheist: Well, if there is a God, let that God come down from heaven and save his son. Page 5

6 God could have stepped in and stopped the harm His Son was enduring. But He did not. Why? Because God permitted the pain, torture and death out of love; a very special type of love called ἀγάπη (agape). A love the atheist is capable of understanding, but willfully rejects. As described above, the occurrence of pain and tragedy in the life of humans is not at all inconsistent with a loving God who cares for us. It appears inconsistent to a atheists who invent their own Gods, and their own notions of what a loving God should do, and who would impugn onto that God a destructive parental trait that would result in a bunch of spoiled rotten brats unworthy of salvation. Conclusion The argument from pain is a powerful intuitive argument against the existence of God so long as one doesn t look too deep. The strength of the argument lies in the smallness of the human mind to grasp the infinite goodness of a loving God in the same way a child cannot grasp the need to suffer the pains of growing up in order to be a fully formed, wise and loving adult. Caoimhín P. Connell Page 6