A new evangelistic movement has emerged in America. Yet this effort does not spring from those loyal to a particular faith or religious view.
The new evangelists are atheists. People who have determined there is no God or who doubt His existence (a group commonly known as agnostics) are adopting a more aggressive, intentional effort to discredit the notion that God exists and to critique people of faith. Widely reviewed new books such as The God Delusion and God is Not Great represent this movement.
Beyond the bestseller lists, however, a new survey shows there is indeed a significant gap between Christians and those Americans who are in the "no-faith" camp. For instance, most atheists and agnostics (56%) agree with the idea that radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam. At the same time, two-thirds of Christians (63%) who have an active faith perceive that the nation is becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity. ("Active faith" was defined as simply having gone to church, read the Bible and prayed during the week preceding the survey.)
A new study by The Barna Group examines the numbers, lifestyles and self-perceptions of America's atheists and agnostics, contrasting the no-faith audience with those who actively participate in the Christian faith. Surprisingly, not every measure shows points of differentiation; there was also some common ground between the two groups who are at opposite ends of the faith spectrum.
Two Worlds Colliding?
In the study, the no-faith segment was defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith." In total, this group represents a surprisingly small slice of the adult population, about one out of every 11 Americans (9%). However, in a nation of more than 220 million adults, that comprises roughly 20 million people.
Interestingly, only about five million adults unequivocally use the label "atheist" and, when asked to describe the nature of God, staunchly reject the existence of such a being. In other words, most of those who align with the no-faith viewpoint harbor doubts as to the existence or nature of a supreme deity but do not express outright rejection of God.
Atheists and agnostics are distinct demographically from the active-faith segment. The no-faith audience is younger, and more likely to be male and unmarried. They also earn more and are more likely to be college graduates.
Perhaps partly due to the younger nature of the audience, atheists and agnostics are more likely than are active-faith adults to say they are into new technology (64% among no-faith individuals versus 52% among active-faith adults) and to assert that they adapt easily to change (81% versus 66%). Atheists and agnostics are also significantly less likely to say they are convinced they are right about things in life (38% versus 55%).
One of the most fascinating insights from the research is the increasing size of the no-faith segment with each successive generation. The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22). When adjusted for age and compared to 15 years ago, each generation has changed surprisingly little over the past decade and a half. Each new generation entered adulthood with a certain degree of secular fervor, which appears to stay relatively constant within that generation over time. This contradicts the popular notion that such generational differences are simply a product of people becoming more faith-oriented as they age.
Independent and Disengaged
One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.
One of the outcomes of this profile — and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults — is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.
Lifestyle Gaps and Common Ground
The study produced a mix of findings when it came to lifestyle and personal priorities. In terms of differences, Christians were more motivated by faith, as expected. Yet, just one-quarter of active-faith adults identified their faith as the primary focus of their lives. For their part, atheists and agnostics were more likely than were Christians to be focused on living a comfortable, balanced lifestyle (12% versus 4%) or on acquiring wealth (10% versus 2%). Three-quarters of no-faith adults said they are clear about the meaning and purpose of their life and a surprising one-quarter said the phrase "deeply spiritual" accurately describes them. One of the largest gaps was the perception of being "at peace," a description less frequently embraced by no-faith adults (67% versus 90%).
Nevertheless, there were a number of areas of commonality between the two audiences. The two groups were equally as likely to think of themselves as good citizens, as placing their family first, as being loyal and reliable individuals, as preferring to be in control, and as being leaders. Each group admitted to experiencing personal difficulties with similar frequency, including being in serious debt (11% versus 10%), dealing with a personal addiction (13% versus 12%), and trying to find a few good friends (41% versus 40%). Christians admit to being overweight with greater frequency (26% of no-faith, compared with 41% of active-faith), while atheists and agnostics are more likely to feel stressed out (37% versus 26%).
In their interactions with others, the two groups also share common ground. Both audiences were equally likely to say they have discussed political, moral, and spiritual issues with others in the last month. In addition, about one-fifth of both active-faith and no-faith adults said they often try to persuade other people to change their views.
Perspective on the Findings
David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group, directed the study of the lifestyles and habits of no-faith adults in America, and pointed out some of the implications of the research. "Neither the 20 million no-faith adults nor the 58 million active-faith Christians are as internally consistent as those who write and speak on behalf of their groups make them out to be. Proponents of secularism suggest that rejecting faith is a simple and intelligent response to what we know today. Yet, most of the Americans who overtly reject faith harbor doubts about whether they are correct in doing so. Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.
"Ironically, however, both atheists and committed Christians share one unusual area of common ground: concern about superficial, inert forms of Christianity in America. There are nearly 130 million American adults who describe themselves as Christians, but who are Christian in name only; their behavior includes little related to experiencing and expressing their alleged faith in Christ."
Kinnaman addresses some of the realities of increasing hostility toward Christians in a new book that examines Mosaics and Busters, releasing in the fall of 2007, called unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity…And Why It Matters. "It is important for Christians to understand the environment and the perspectives of people who are different from them, especially among young generations whose culture is moving rapidly away from Christianity. Believers have the options of ignoring, rejecting or dealing with the aggressiveness of atheists and those hostile to the Christian faith. By their own admission, Christians have difficulty handling change, admitting when they are uncertain of something, and responding effectively to divergent perspectives. These characteristics make the new challenges facing Christianity even more daunting."
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 am
Here follows a classic example of the insidious nature of the secular athesit attack against Catholics:
While driving 2 days ago I heard the morning announcer say, "Well, I wonder what scandal the Vatican is trying to cover up now?! Ha! Ha!" He then proceded to mock the Vatican issued "Ten Commandments of Driving". He mocked their content and their name.
I refuse to get my news about the faith from hostile atheists, therefore, since I hadn't seen anything about this on Catholic Exchange, I went to the Vatican website. There I discovered the Vatican issued "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road". This 37 page document was issued by the Office for Migrants and Itinerants for the use of bishops. (It's worth reading, however, if you ever get behind the wheel of a car!)
So, back to the radio show hosts. The popular media coined the phrase "Ten Commandments of Driving" and then mocked the Church for it, along with some other bashing just for morning sport. Many Catholics I talked with actually agreed with the popular media, "Yeah! Why did they have to call it the Ten Commandments? That belittles the real commandments. And what business is this of the Vatican anyway?"
In discussing this with my 18 year old daughter, she knows the importance of this document. Uncoached she told me, "Non Catholics don't understand that our faith isn't just something we do on Sunday. It's who we are. It's how we live our lives."
And that is what bothers the atheists the most!
Beware of the toxic news media. Let he who has ears to hear, hear! Let he who has eyes to see, see. Let he who has a soul united to Christ turn to the Church for Truth.
Stay alert…
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 am
True enough as far as you go,elkabrikir. But you have not gone far enough. If you have time to review the pages of responses regarding Shea's series " The Incoherence of Atheism I,II,l III ( I have argued at lenght that this series is an example of the type of morally irresponsible, because alienating, journalage I urge against writing; not to mention that it is poorly argued in its own right) you will get a richer version of what I am going to say to you. In sum form : While it is true that much anti-Catholic prejudice from non Catholics and secualrists exists, your last sentence is a prime example of an attitude which has not served us believers very well. It is a type of self-delusion, a type of illusory self-enclosure which acutely now must be renounced if we are to remain in- tegral as Catholics. We need to seek friutful engagement with non-believers. To the point. We can no longer run to a seculed place where we hear only what we want to hear and see only what we want to see -and to hell with the rest of the non-believineg world! No. That age old attitude and practice was always the wrong thing to have done, and the maleffects of this widespread practice of self-enclosure and sequestratiion is now raising up its head to bite us in the be-hind! Reread today's lead article from the Barna Research, especially the last paragraph. Yes, we must come to understand their perspectives! Otherwise, we will lose contact on many fronts with a growing segment of our world, suffer greater prejudice and bashing, disable our capacity for fruitful engagement in a mutual dailogue of common ends and values, negate any potential for their future conversion since unequipped and unable to address their [ sometimes ] legitamate concerns and arguments in terms of their language and their premises, et.al. We can not simply retreat to a false sense of inner personal blessedness any longer. Nor are we to "do battle", including the type of battle of aggressive and depricating journaism as exhibited on this post and elsewhere by painting certain all or certain atheists and humanists as incoherent,irrational, and [ some believe] incapable of morality and the good. Even if these accusations were true, whichthey are not across the board, this "doing battle" is not the type of engagement we need. It only further polarizes things while engendering a smug pseudo-intellectual grounding for certain less well- read and non-bookish audiences. What we do need to be doing will be spelled out later.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
I never said I isolated myself. However, when I hear or see things that I find suspicious, I go to the primary source. In the case of the "ten commandments" it is the Vatican. When I want to know what a candidate says, I read her words, not the spin.
My point was that I don't trust the media to tell me about my faith.
You said:
We can no longer run to a seculed place where we hear only what we want to hear and see only what we want to see -and to hell with the rest of the non-believineg world!
You don't know me, and your comment is a generalization based you projecting your beliefs about others onto them. Far from sequestering myself, I am very engaged in my larger community. I realize that not only am I to be salt, but that I can learn from a diverse group of people.
I have many children and know that I need to engage the world at its level. Therefore, my kids participate in sports and music bringing Christ to where they are and being repectful of others. I dress in and attractive way and so do my children and husband.
My husband daily interacts with a diverse group of people. He never preaches with words or is judgmental. But most people know who he IS.
.
We do need to continue to dialog with each other about ways to evangelize the world and bring Christ to people. We do need to dialog (Benedict XVI definition of it) with people outside the church.
I think I understand your point, however, I think that fear is what drives people to isolate themselves . We are not to judge their motives in any case since we are INCAPABLE of knowing why anybody acts in a particular way.
Oh! We're all on the same side. Don't let Satan divide and conquer.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
@lwall
Over the last 4 articles and associated comments I have read, I believe I am coming to better understand you and your contentions with the comments on atheism. The next logical step is for you to produce a plan on how to "engage" the atheist in a productive discussion. I am not quite clear on if you think the goal of such a venture would be to convert the atheist or to map out our similarities for the sake of symbiosis, so you will have to clarify that too.
I eagerly await your outline.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
One more thing.
The scriptures tell us that we are in a Battle among the Principalities. I firmly believe that.
Jesus said and I paraphrase, "be cunning as a fox and as gentle as a dove."
Scripture says, "either you are with us or against us".
When I hear a direct attack on the Church, that person has actualized their loyalty. My post related to a direct attack.
We are Solidiers for Christ and I won't be cowed by the modern battle tactic of diversity and plualism. The illusion of respectful dialog is belied by the consequences of a degenerate, hedonistic society.
We ARE in a spiritual battle for souls. Recognize where the battle lines and fight…
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
Iwall: "We need to seek fruitful engagement with non-believers". That has a nice ring to it. We certainly don't want to waste our time having unfruitful engagement with non-believers. The problem is that the fruit they seek is to make you a non-believer, and the fruit you seek is to make them a believer. Someone is going to be disappointed - unless - as you seem to suggest, we can find some sort of tolerance, some common ground, some compromise, some accomodation. Maybe we could agree to be unbelieving-believers if they would agree to be believers that are unbelieving. In order to get them to the table, everyone gets a little fruit. That would be difficult for us to do. In this politically correct culture that teaches tolerance above all, we Catholics must remain an intolerant bunch of stubborn and seemingly narrow-minded bunch of ideologs. If anyone accuses us of being an empathetic, well-rounded, tolerant people, anxious to "get along" on a middle ground, we can defend ourselves against such slander by pointing to the very moment in history when we were told not to be tolerant.
When Moses walked down the mountain and told the Jews that God said: "I am the Lord thy God, and you shall have no other gods before Me" - that was pretty intolerant. "No other" means zero. We have a politically incorrect God. Jesus Christ is just as bad. He said, "I am the truth, the life and the way". He didn't mention anyone else.
I read these statistics from Barna Group - I found them to be very interesting - as reflecting the kinds of problems that believers have in living with specific and definable religion-based values amid a culture that holds those values to be intolerant and detremental to society - leading the unbelievers to the conclusion that individual believers are therefore anit-social and ignorant. In that situation, "fruitful engagement" between believers and non-believers does not seem possible. As an intolerant people we must offer the non-believers the same terms that Franklin Roosevelt offered to Germany and Japan in WWII. "This conflict must end with your unconditional surrender".
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Amen, danny and elkabrikir!
And we must do it all out of love, which is the hardest part of all.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
You are right. That is the hardest part for me. I wonder if the Holy Spirit reads Catholic Exchange. Holy Spirit, if you are reading this, I need Your help. It is difficult for me to love those ungrateful, gutless, selfish, deceiving, worthless knuckle heads - but I am working on it.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 am
"If angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." ~ St. Maximilian Kolbe
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
danny,
You made your fellow knucklehead laugh with that one!
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Danny,
In one of my posts I wanted to say the same thing you articulated, but I'm already a bigmouth!
How does they saying go, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
What makes this battle so difficut is that we ARE dealing with souls and humans with dignity.
We all need to leave the field with our dignity intact.
You are right, "Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful, and kindle in them the fire of your love."
Will you good folks please pray for the Dorchak famiy who will celebrate a Mass of the Angels today for their 3 year old who drowned two weeks ago today. Joshua's body has not been recovered from the lake yet. I know we'll need lots of Kleenex at the mass. Mass is at 7 PM. (Thank you for letting me interject that request.)
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Survey after survey indicates that the sexual abuse problem is at least just as bad with ministers and rabbis as it is with Catholic priests. (See "Pedophiles and Priests", Philip Jenkins, Oxford University Press, or the story that AP ran in papers last week.) The problem, believe it or not, is that the Catholic Church is more open and keeps records. There's also a difference in size: there's just as many Episcopalians [2 million], and twice as many Jews of all denominations [4 million], as there are Catholics in the Boston Archdiocese alone.
And in 2004 Charol shakeshaft of Hofstra University, in a study she conducted for the US Department of Education in compliance with the "No Child Left Behind Act", estimated that the sexual abuse problem in the public schools is at least 100 times worse than in the Catholic Church. But you can't sue the government (see the news from Delaware) and besides the media knows how to be "discrete".
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Danny, I agree entirely with you. But I would still love to see what lwall has to say about the plan to engage atheists in a fruitful dialogue.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
lwall - I think you are mistaken that there is specific evil done in the theme of the article by mark. Given the form i think it is evident that his intended audience is NOT atheist but is in fact Christians. Providing information to Christians that can they can use to recognize the difference between themselves and atheist is the first step in any truly fruitful dialog, because a fruitful dialog requires an understanding on both parties of their similarities AND their differences. Also, as we look to co-operate on the natural level with all peoples it is important that we realize at what point their co-operation may be useful vs harmful in accomplishing our real goals.As Christians our primary purpose must not be the relief of temporal suffering or betterment of a person’s physical situation. These things while in and of themselves good and important must always be measured against the extension of the kingdom of heaven and the salvation of souls, anything else would be unloving.When is it wrong to feed the hungry? when doing so would endanger the salvation of the hungry man or others.
For instances we could provide a viable review stream and employment for many unemployed women by legalizing and regulated prostitution.
Likewise, on the surface, it would seem like a good way to slow the spread of aids is passing out condoms and that two useful tools in combating hunger, especially hunger associated with population pressure , are legalized abortion and birth control.
However these means are unacceptable to Christians because they are a danger to the salvation of souls.
My point is this: Only by realizing our commonality can we foster co-operation, only by realizing our difference can we have a realistic expectation of when and how we can trust each other.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Don Schenk,
You are so right! I was trying to make that exact point the other day when the article about parish lawsuits was posted. The Catholic Church is a target because everything is so well documented, and because of the "deep pockets" in terms of good insurance. Should the Church be held to a higher standard? Ideally, yes, but this does not justify the inflation of the guilt of the Church by the media and the general public, while the guilt of other denominations and professions is downplayed or ignored.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Elkabrikir: The Dorchaks will have our prayers. We lost our oldest son about ten years ago. I don't think there is a pain quite like what the Dorchaks are suffering right now. Time helps, but not a day goes by ……..
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
elkabrikir: Thanks for the response. Ok, then, but your last sentence still sounds a piece with the widespread "call to re-treat to the hills, avoid the infidel, self-enclosuer that so many advocate on this website; an attitude which easily issues into the very dispositions and attitudes warned against in the Barna article today. Keep conversing here. Read the other posts and read my responses.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
candeo: The first step is distinguishing between the intention to convert and the intention to collaborate in a mutual effort to actualize certain shared values. The two intentions may overlap certainly. But each requires a specific set of skills.They are also quite different. What I refer to here as engaging includes that (1) we educate ourselves about common ends. That requires reading and then discussion. We seek to identify common ends and must refrain from justificatory paradigms, or ahistoric reasons, etc. All of this is utterly irrelevant to the projects of feeding the poor, housing rthe homeless, seeking less greed by the wealthy, making government more transparent, espousing widespraed and better education, increasing the minimum wage… a heavenly host of shared ends.! Importantly, this is not to say that we must first converge on philosophical issues and ahistoric groundings. We ought to eschew all talk on metaphysics, the nature of matter, free will, universe's origins etc. We need not seek convergence on any of that before deciding to converge on ends as far as convergence is possible. Many, many, many good secular humnaists share many, many social/political ends with us. Jesus tells us paradoxicallyl that the Good Samaritan was "good" despite being regarded as an untouchable infidel - Heavens!! Mount Gerezim !! - in the eyes of the "saved" and proper Jews! See. You may not want to hear it,but we do not have the lock on all goods! The Kingdom of God can be advanced even with assistance the supposed infidel, the secular humanist, the atheist, the Jew, the Methodist, etc.; it can be advanced in the case of convergence on ends. I urge you and everyone to begin thinking then acting along these lines. And let's stop disparaging folks, for Christ's sake, for their metaphysics and their lack of belief in God. Rather why not just change the topic from metaphysics and theology to ends and means.Thanks.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Protect the Rock : Yes, out of love. I detect no surplus of love here on this post regarding atheists and ethical humanists. Only fear, flight, disparaging and bad arguments re: metaphysics,etc…Stop this fortress mentality, please. Review the article this morning. We are where we are because of these very attituides. Thanks.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
fishman: The fact that Mark's audience makes the matter worse! He has provided a pseudo-intellectual and poorly premised miniseries which fobs less bookisk folk into being really impressed. I have painstaking laid out elsewhere [ see my comments on "Incoh.. III ] excatly why Mark's premises are wrong. That aside. Now you do have a tendency to resort to hyperbole! Of couse, we do not walk with anyone espousing abortion as a means to population control or prostitution as a means to up employment. Are you chaarcterizing atheists as esposing that! Now, yourv last sentence is something that shows some real wisdom. Thanks.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
My parents & sister are atheists. I am the only baptized person in my family. All but 2 people in my extended family, do not believe in God either. These 4 articles on atheism echo the beliefs of my family, almost exactly. And they too, persecute Christians in the privacy of their home. I was taught as a child, that Jesus Christ was a fairy tale. My sister asked me not to pray for her and not tell her or my parents about my volunteer work in the church. My dad and sister get downright angry if faith is ever brought up. Even when people sing songs for Christmas. When we attend mass for Christmas it is a sore spot. My family has attacked me many times for my faith and way of life, because their values conflict with Christianity. And yes, they think the whole thing is superstition and chemicals in the brain are to blame.
This is what I learned in a nutshell: find common ground, and live the words of the gospel. Go to where they are at, relate to it, and without anger, respectfully explain what we believe. Anger esculates and polarizes the whole thing. Common ground, love, respect and especially living the words of the gospel helps.
During my last visit home, my dad could not understand why a life long friend kept trying to get him and my mother to go to church. It really upset him. I explained that even though he did not understand their beliefs, that his friend cared a great deal about him. That was why he kept asking them to go to church with him. My dad at least understood that his friend cared about him and he made his peace with the situation.
I think that is what Jesus tried to teach us. Love. Respect. And common ground.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
lwall:
Of couse, we do not walk with anyone espousing abortion as a means to population control or prostitution as a means to up employment. Are you chaarcterizing atheists as esposing that!
Well as a matter of fact, yes many atheists do in fact espouse that. Have you ever read any of the atheist manifestos? They are basically creeds that are signed by many atheists. They espouse some of these kinds of things directly. This of course does not mean that all atheists espouse these beliefs and I think it is in error for you or anyone to lump all atheists together in one common creed.
I detect no surplus of love here on this post regarding atheists and ethical humanists.
lwall, I think you are reading things into people's posts that are not there. You might try reading what people say and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than assume they hate atheists.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Here is something else to think about. THere has been much discussion here about engaging the atheist/agnostic group. But what about those who withdrew to monasteries? Did not the monastic traditions save society as it fell apart?
I may be mis-reading monastic history, but there was certainly a desire to commune among only like minded people.
Some today may suggest this is a type of ghetto mentality; and there may be a need to re-adjust how monasticism looks in the modern world, but maybe … just maybe … Cardinal Ratzinger chose "Benedict" for a more prophetic reason than we know!
Fr. Frank
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 am
to laurak and all especially Shea : I was moved by your post. I am sorry that you have experienced abuse of the kind you have. There must have been much anguish.Your last three sentences sum up nicley the attitudes and dispositions that I believe are pleasing to the Lord. You seem to have experienced the blessedness of the beatitudes in all this. The Lord promised that we would. To continue to invite to church out a genuine love and concern exemplifies that refusal to argue and become exorcised over metaphysics etc. which I have referred to so much in my posts. This attitude of yours replaces the very irresponsibe attitude of bad and irresponsible journalge as with Shea which, besides being very poorly argued by Mark, almost always exhibits and communicates a set of angry, arrogant, hostile attitudes among the readership that tend to make both camps only rise up in arms; it fosters alienation rather than any modicum of reconciliation because it is intended to show how the atheist is wrong, incoherent, and irrational. It ends up drawing invidious distinctions if not consciously, then what is worse, unconsciously. It breeds immoral dispositons of hatred and/or retreat while implicitly drawing up invidious distinctions between us and them which distinctions serve only to further ecplipse the vision we are asked to have of going outside ourselves, traveling to heathen Nineveh, engaging and inviting the "sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors" and we are to do so not armed with diatribe and vitriole but with a desire for solidarity as far as possible with our brothers and sisters who, for a complex set of contingent reasons you nor I understand, simply do not believe. We need to see that even a dispicable Samaritan or a dispicable atheist or secular hunaist can be good! Laurak,as you so beautifully show, you have refused the urge to argument, refused to do battle over "Who is right here " and "Who has the right metaphysics here" as was done in Shea's mini-series " Incoherence…" Besides, I could so easily debunk and make "mine meat" - believe me! - out every single one of Mark's premises by deploying current, very complex arguments drawn from the powerful current genres of the philosophy of language ala Donald Davidson, certain current evolutionis neuro/philopsphers ala Churchland [ UCSD ] and Mark Johnson [ Univ. Oregon] while drawing on certain other persuasive writers such as Richard Rorty. I know , study, and teach this stuff! There are some very good arguments made by non-believers, yes, arguments concerning first principles and metaphysics. Things we need to respond to in a certain manner. I hope that you and this readership have not been fobbed by Shea's "eruditon" but realize that that his argument is not a template for Christian formation nor a "gotch ya' atheist" article. Now, Laurak,instead you replaced that with the simple call which was the Lord's gentle call too! A call that says, " I know your distress at Christianity, I know your reasons, and I hear your animis. But, I am calling to you only because I love you and so does God …will you just walk with me a little distance this day?" We believers can and should do the same. A type of walking together would be listening, reading, and trying to converge on common ends and goods. Laurak, I experienced the same with my granfather who, while not an avowed atheist, nonetheless, was a proud non-believer. He was immovably entrenced in his refusal to become a Christian and rejected belief in God. No one could win an argument with Pop. Even if you won by virtue of your argument, you still lost! Pop and I were close, close pals. And when I was baptized at age 8 in the Baptist church, he surprisngly soon began to respond to my invitations. He soon joined the adult program leading to baptism. He was baptized at age 58. He became a different being! Pop in his later years brought the family together spiritually especially at family dinners centered around his very humbling conversion, this now different Pop. He lead every family get together in prayer so quieltly and so humbly [ Wow! That's Pop!! ].This ex-professional baseball player, rogue, fighter, and gambler. His humility was so quiet in fact that some us were convinced Pop was somtimes whispering to God something private as he prayed the blessing at table's head. So I say, Thanks for the post! Exemplary! I hope folks read it. God bless you.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 am
To Gart T : In response.Those things certain atheists or anyone else might espouse which we consider patently and unarguably immoral we simply can not abide. By the way, there are thousands of Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and Jews who espouse as atheists espouse on abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc. . The point? Atheists do not necessarily highlight a line of demarcation betweem "us good guys" and "them bad guys!" Christians contribute to that line. Same goes for the good. I have said this repeatedly! But what about those with whom we do converge. What is your take and attitude towards them, Gary! I would like to know. Do you want to contribute to the growing incommensuarability, conflict, incompatibility, and mutual deafness between "us" and "them"; the type of increasing mutual deafness and distancing bred by Mark Shea's and others journalage; the type of distancing which is addressed by the Barna report? { I should have said," and which admonishes us Catholics! }. Gary T, if you have been reading my posts you surely should know that I categorically do not nor do I advocate "lumping all atheists together in a common creed." I have too many times said that atheism is first a denial and thus carries no pre-set agenda. "Lumping together" is what most Christians do, however, and it is immoral and irresponsible to do so. GaryT, am I "reading into" peoples post when I read how non-Christians are not capable of good? Or that they are the precise spiritual enemy in high places that St. Paul says we must battle against? Or how we can not seek common ends for the sake of the comon good with "them" because, afterall, they have no "reason" to be good and, in fact, are wolfs in sheeps clothing waiting to devour our faith and convert us; and the like…ad nauseam. What is it I am I "reading into" these and other comments, Gary T? I would like to know how else to read them.Thanks.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 am
Fr. Frank : I hope you are not suggesting that the choice of "Benedict" by Ratzinger is a gesture intended for the Christian world advocating a monastic retreat mentality wherein we seek to " commune only among like- minded people." That would be tantamount to refusing our call as the lay People of God whose vocation is the extra-mural world at large, no? Besides, I could not resist chuckling to myself at the rather impossible image of being cloistered with this current day's Catholics! There is very little like- mindedness among us even on the big issues and even upon the sine qua non doctrines of the faith! Thanks.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
lwall, I agree with what you said about finding common humanitarian "projects" to work on with atheists, but I think the reality is that many of us are drawn first into debates about metaphysics and theology before any of that is considered, so it is important to address the matter of argument too.
I was waiting for that personal story of how atheism affected your life. I knew it had to be a close one.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Fr. Frank, can you please elaborate?
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
candeo: I can't say atheism has affected my life. For I do not know what it means or possibly could mean to " get something " from or be "affected" by denying something, that is, to deny God's existence. That seems to be pretty vaccuous - just a denial. What has affected me profoundly is the critique of Christianity by some first rate thinkers. This critique by Neitzshe, Kierkegaard, Kant, James, Hegel, even Descartes ironically had the effect of clearing way for me a host of bad theology based on bad philosophy that had come to characterize Christianity. Being a philosopher and teacher, I was drawn to certain contemporary philosphers who shared my distaste of what I call bad theology informed by bad philosophy. So I poured myself into their works, and it was exhilirating and still is. I am struck by the visions of so any of them, including and especally their moral vision. They opened up for me a way of perceiving without condeming and excluding ; something I expected should have been endemic to the Church but just simply is not. I have come to realize the incredible moral worth of going beyond the confines of "Churchy" literature. Richard Rorty is my favorite particularly his notion of the liberal ironist. His as well as the entire tradition from Kant through the postmodernists have quickened my perrception and awareness of bad metaphysics which I now can sniff out miles away. That's why Shea's usage of certain terms often wrangles me so! And folks buy into it unwittingly because of his up front credibility with his audience. There is more.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
lwall - a simple point of fact is this.
Either God exist or he does not.
If he does in fact exist as a real person who can be encountered like any other then morality is defined by God and not by man.
you said:
"Rather why not just change the topic from metaphysics and theology to ends and means" because both ends and means are dependant on theology. ends and means are secondary for theolgy. both ends and means must be because of theology.
To put it more concreatly , assuming there is in fact a real being whom is called God and who can be known, then our purpose must be to serves His will and that intent is an essential part of the means for accomplishing the task. For instance, feeding the hungery is useless if you are not also praying for the hungry.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
lwall - a simple point of fact is this.
Either God exist or he does not.
If he does in fact exist as a real person who can be encountered like any other then morality is defined by God and not by man.
you said:
"Rather why not just change the topic from metaphysics and theology to ends and means" because both ends and means are dependant on theology. ends and means are secondary for theolgy. both ends and means must be because of theology.
To put it more concreatly , assuming there is in fact a real being whom is called God and who can be known, then our purpose must be to serves His will and that intent is an essential part of the means for accomplishing the task. For instance, feeding the hungery is useless if you are not also praying for the hungry.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Fishman: My suggsetion to "change the topic" from meatphysics to pragmatism and to focus on meansand ends in our discussions with non-believers was taken out of the context in which I had advocated doing so as a prerequisite and mode of engaging non-believers, a necessary commitment on our part to eschew the GREAT TEMPTATION of revereting to God talk when we know too well that God talk, groundings, the origins of iniverse, the question of free will, nature of matter..the sorts of things Shea sees worth arguing about - which only fuel an interminable debate and ends up with both discussants disparaging the other { See the miniseries by Shea " Incoherence of Atheism I -III" as prime example of not only bad metaphysics argued badly, but the kind of fob of a { his naive} naive audience and disparaging remarks that fuel the sorts of gulf-widening we see addressed by the Barna report } …these sorts of things need to be avoided IF you want to share common goals with non-believers and learn, befriend, posssibly convert, and advance the Kingdom of God in its social dimension. If you want to address the frieghtening facts spelled out tin the Barna report . See above. If you want to walk with your neigbor, want to become neighbor ( see Pope Benedict's commentary on "Good Samaritan" in his book Jesus of Nazareth.) Now if you personally desire, need, feel obligated, or feel you are making a joyous response to God when you pray about starving children, then of course pray. However, I much disagree when you say that "feeding hungry children is useless if you are not praying for the hungry". This is shocking to read! It is a piece of the pervasive Christian chauvinism, widespread ignorance about non-believers, and [one of ]the root causes widening an already significant gulf,breeding further detachment between belivers and non-believers. Once again! One does not have to be a believer in order to be moral and to do good things, to carry out works of mercy, and cause many, many more good things as well as. One unique "good thing" that non-believer literature ( I am not referring to aggressive anti- God pamphlets and manifestos,etc. ) is to help us believers expand our moral vision, sensitivities, and relevances. Yes. Much atheist/agnostic/humanist/ literature and journalage can help us Christians see Christ "out there." This is a very simple claim, a truism. Easy to confirm in experience IF YOU WERE ACTUALLY TO START READING. So remember, you nor Christianis have a monopoly on the moral good. I believe it was you,I am not certain, who last week claimed that atheists are not capable of the good, of morality. I hope you know better now. What a wholesale judgment against the Natural Law and the rest of God's human creation that is, which Natural Law you SUPPOSEDLY believe in as a Catholic [ in fact, are you Catholic?]. What a divisive pious fiction, ultimately a "conversation stopper" between believer and non-believer. Your attitude - it happens to be that of too many Christians I am afraid! -is but one of the many causes of a growing diviseness between us and our brothesr/sisters. Again ,the Barna report! Besides, the starving child needs food. Here and on many other acts of mercy we and our non-believers might converge in action. You would deny her that food if it came from the hand of an atheist? " Feeding her without prayer is useless" you say! Shame on you.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Joshua's body was found Friday during a prayer service at the lake!!! The mass was held several hours later as planned.
Thanks for your prayers!
June 24th, 2007 at 7:18 am
My comment was intended more as tongue-in-cheek than anything serious, but there is a sense in which we should look to rally-'round-the-flag. Yes, we are to reach out, and the monastics did. But it seems to me they did so from within a recognized homogenous setting. I too would find trying this in "today's american church" as opposed to the surity of teaching once the mainstay of the american church in union with the Church a deep difficulty. But maybe our problem rest in not having that sure teaching - I know: that falls on me and my brother priests. Some of us are trying.
God bless.
Fr. Frank
June 24th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Candeo and All: To continue my post of Sat. 7:56 and in response to yours on Sat. 7:41 a.m re: "being first drawn into metaphysics" …to you and to everyone. Is it that you, Candeo, first want to involve yourself in metaphysisc? I am unclear. If so, you might ask of yourself, from whence this strong urge to do metaphysics. What's at stake here : do you want to make your positon more "respectable" to the non-believer? A intelligent atheist is unlikely to respect your metaphysical argumnets, because there are very sophisticated and trumping counter-arguments in his/her arsenal. Do you actually believe you can unseat his/her metaphysical views? Doubtful. For eample, do you think Shea's articles made Dennet run away with his tail between his legs or convert in secret to Christianity? N0. Besides, having pointed out how poorly Shea argued, likewise the forging of a cogent metaphysical argument for the supernatural is, in general, risky and difficult terrain for any informed modern to stand on. But, maybe I misconstrue your post. Are you suggesting that the atheist wants first to do metaphysics with us , wants to engage us non-believers? If that is your meaning then I say, "Listen to him/her very carefully." Have your own background knowledge on his/her positions at hand so as to rspond intelligently and not dogmatically. If you encounter a dogmatic assertion, lets say the atheist asserts " It's is matter all the way down, no spirit, no free will, no God" then, there are two quite different generic responses you might consider. The first is to join in on the metaphysical debate. You will have to be much better informed on metaphysics than has been shown in Shea's parts I,II, and III post, however, if you were to encounter an intelligent and informed atheist in person. You might get buy a little better if you were responding, let's say, to a book or an article in the absence of its author. If I were joining in on metaphysics, I would acknowledge the force of argument made by, let's say Dennet. I would then suggest that his view of "matter" seems a little outmoded in view of the current scienec; that matter seems to be capable of a heck of a lot of things and may not serve as this dumb, deterministic, limited homogeneous stuff that he envisages; that matter is much more elusive and indeterminate than is being assumed by him. I would point to quark theory, string theory, and and indeterminacy theories. I would do this to rehabilitate matter from any presumed confinement. I would also eschew getting too far into the free will debate but would hope to forge agreemet that his denial of free will requires a view of matter and causation that I have pretty good reasons to reject; that I believe either side of the debate is resistant to proof. I would agree with the point he will surely make upon the centality of belief in free will in Catholic tradition/doctrine… how contradictory of me not to argue for free will! But then I would say that, while we no longer believe, as is required by traditional free will doctrine, that our choosing selves operate in a little private secret space abstacted from the influences of the millions of neural frameworks that constitute "me" and which serve as the "me" who decides and chooses, we nonetheles regard ourselves as choosing selves and, further, that we can actually change and modify the millions of neural synaptic frameworks that constitute "me", that is, there is room for envisaging a more or less plastic "choosing self" as a function of reading scripture, praying, and a host of other inputs presented to my synaptic self. Thus the debate on free will is just not very interesting anymore nor relevant to my conception of self, choice, and human plasticiiy which things ARE of consumate importance to our more or less shared moral vision. I also would get in that the Letter To the Hebrews expresses metaphorically what we now know by way of good science regarding the efficacy of Scripture viz. human plasticity. The second response would be to say that you have thrown yourself deeply into the metaphysical debate and, while it is very interesting and challenging, such debates are intermniable and can cut both ways. You have found that the outcome of such debates is only to exorcise both sides after about one hour; while settling nothing the debate only dishevels everyone. I would also proffer that - should I be challenged on this point - I indeed have pretty good current scientific language to explain or at least make plausible, in terms amenable to the best science of the day, my belief in the Incarnation, Eucharist, Resurrection, Revelation as both written Word and corporeal Word, the Mass…and without my having to revert to the medieval trans-substantiation locutuions of essense, accidents, - which is good for me since my interlocutor is probably poised to jum all over Aristotelain categories anyway! I would then urge that we get off metaphysics since such debate obfuscates a more pressing need I see, namely, the need of actualizing the betterment of the many politico-social immoral deficiencis of our culture now staring us in the face. I would acknowledge that we surely will not coincide on a moral line item comparison, but I would say that there are many shared ends in view that I hope our unsettled metaphysics should not preclude us from advancing. I would then seek to discuss issues of that shared vision and the means for their acheivement. I would then thank him/her for hearing me, inquire of recommendations for familiarizing myself with his/her stock of readings and offer the same, then express the hope of keeping the conversation going. Thanks.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:01 am
@ elkabrikir: Who is Joshua? What happened? I am so sorry that he died, and that they had to search for his body…how horrid for his family. I will keep them in my prayers.
@ lwall:Thank you for your advice. My comment was based on personal experience with atheists in my workplace. I was from the very first tagged as "the Catholic" there, so naturally people of all different faiths would come around to my cube to learn what I (and my faith) was all about. Surprisingly, the atheists wanted to know why I believed in God, and never brought up humanitarian issues. Point being: they are the ones that chose metaphysics and philosophy as the turf, and were little interested in humanitarian issues and finding common ground, if at all. Their stance was not hostile, but questioning, though arrogant as well. I think that most every-day atheists are still in the stage of searching, and that explains their emphasis on metaphysics. I will try out your advice in the future when engaging them on that turf.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Candeo:
Joshua Dorchak (3)was the youngest of 5 children who drowned tragically when he got caught in the rigging of his family's small sun fish sailboat as it capsized.
He was found 14 days later during a prayer service at the lake in SC.
The beautiful Mass of the Angels was celebrated several hours later and he will be buried today.
The boat was at 112 ft and his body had been well preserved by the cold water. Hundreds of divers had searched for him using sonar images as a guide.
His family is devasted but strong in their Catholic Faith. The prayers on their behalf from around the country have consoled them deeply.
During the Mass of the Angels homily the priest said that during this horrible time "Grace was so thick you could 'cut it with a knife'".
The Dorchak familys' response to this horrible accident gives evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit in this world. They have not suffered this as stoics, but rather as Christians who have embraced the horror of the cross and believe the Glorified Christ makes all things new through the resurrection.
Thank you for asking. We were camping with the family when it happened and we, too, will never fully recover in this world except by corresponding with God's grace and living in faith and hope.
What do the aethists offer?
June 25th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Fishman: Saying " Feeding the hungray is useless if you are not praying for the hungry" is shocking to hear. It certainly is not useless for ythe hungry child! Your attitude is a piece of the very attitude that continues to sepatate us from our moral nom-believing brotghers and sisters, is unjustifiably chaauvinistic, arrogant, and most importantly scandalizes Christianity,Church, and individusal believers. Again, one does not to believe in God to be moral or to do god things.Even Mark Shae believes this much.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
lwall - may I suggest you read the book "Jesus of Nazareth' by pope Benedict.
I will try to summarize it, but I recommend reading it anyway because he is much or eloquent and organized in his approach then I have time to be. He develops his point over several pages and I have only a few paragraphs to keep this readable.
During Jesus’s temptations he is offered all the Kingdoms of the world in their ‘glory’ (the Greek work is temporary or fading glory). He declines them because ‘you should not put God to the test’. The lesson for Christian’s in this is that God’s kingdom is NOT of this world. This is repeated again when Christ is spoken to by pilot and the lesson driven home in the choice between Jesus the true ‘son of God’ and bar-abbas ( a robber – a common phrase at the time for freedom fighter) and a name that means ‘son of God’. The crowd literally chooses between too ‘saviors’ one that will fight the worldly fight for freedom and the true anointed son of God who has promised something different. Jesus and his mission ( and therefore the mission of all Christians ) is NOT to bring about world peace, it is NOT to end world hunger, it is NOT to end human suffering. In short it is NOT to make the world a better place.
So what is the Christian mission: It is to bring about interior conversion of every heart. To Guide people to a loving relationship with God. Literally, to bring about the kingdom of God in each human heart.
ONLY when this mission is the PRIMARY goal can you expect to be effective in accomplishing the SECONDARY purpose of reliving human suffering. Every human being has more the one need. Is it really to the advantage of a starving child if you were to guarantee him food, but raise him in a dispassionate environment where he spent his entire life feeling unwanted and unloved.
In truth one is nice, the second is GOOD. This is not an either or situation it MUST be a BOTH and situation. It is correctly pointed out in scripture that if you meet a hungry man, you have done nothing worthwhile if you wish him well and tell him to keep warm and his belly full, if you do not also help him to get food. Likewise, you have done him no favors if you give him food and do not wish him well and tell him that you love him and that he will always be loved by God.
There are many people in this world who are not malnourished but are still starving , because they are staved for God.
This is the way Fr. Benedict Greshel ( who has his PH.D in physiology puts it).
“Physiology is a wonderful tool. It can help you go from being miserable to merely unhappy. However, if you want to be truly happy you need God.”
Let me put it to you this way. If a baptized child starves to death it will go to heaven. Suppose you could feed that child and it would live, but through some divine vision it was revealed to you that if the child did not die of starvation he would die in mortal sin and forever burn in hell? Would you be doing the child any favors by feeding it?
“What prophet has a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his immortal soul”.
The fact of the matter is we will never accomplish anything truly good with out direct help from God. It is not within our power to do good because we do not understand what needs to be done.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Fishman: I have ready read Jesus of Nazareth. To the point again! Are atheists capable of the good? What do u say. You skirt all the important issues, and I think I have had it up to here - in fact, I have had it up to here with you. Would you actually stop the hand of a non-believer poised to feed a child because he will not be praying for the child? Do you not see that as a moral good…to feed the hungry FOOD. Magnify that image 100 million times and that's excatly what your attitiude towards non/beloevers accomplishes in the world. Good luck.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Are atheists capable of the good? The answer is NO.
Neither, for that matter or Catholics or any human being.
Only God is good and dependance on him is the esential attribute of charity. Losing sight of that is to lose sight of the goal. Only is so much as we conform to him are we good and the more perfect we conform the more good we do.
Would I stop an athiest from feeding a child , of coarse not. Would I co-operate with him if that's what he wanted to do , sure. Would I be entirely remiss in being as concerned for the athiest as I am for the child if I did not make it one of my goals in life to convience the athiest and the child there is in fact a God? Absolutely.
Would I be out of line to stop an athiest from feeding people if I thought it compromised thier faith in God or endangered thier faith in God because he also insisted on passing out condems while he did fed them?
in absolutely no way. It is better for people to remain poor and starving to death with a true and sincere faith in God then it is for them to be 'westernized' and 'secularized' by 'help' from people who attach strings to it of them becoming 'more civialized'.
So I'm all for co-operating with athiest if thier co-opration is on my terms and not the other way around. I have never seen that happen though , not once.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Q.E.D