An atheist friend told me that Faith is not logical, and so the faithful cannot argue against an atheist, because an atheist uses logic.
How would one respond to these two questions if they were posed by an atheist:
1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?
2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?
And we'll see where this goes.
There's answers for these. I used to be an Agnostic and took the Atheist's leap of faith (I knew it was a leap) just to try as a way of dealing with my own fear of the supernatural (which I knew I was doing). In other words, reject all belief in the supernatural and believe only in the natural and see how it works out. You know, try it on for size. So, that's where I think Atheists are really coming from. Otherwise, they'd be an Agnostic or a believer in something.
Take evolution for example. Everything really does appear to be made. So, evolution is trying to solve a problem (how did we get here) that doesn't exist. We know how we got here, we were made by somebody. That's evident. Of course, that isn't a proof for Christianity. It could have been aliens that made us or "the spaghetti monster in the sky."
So, we aren't bound to any sort of morality by an acceptance that we were made, particularly if we conclude (which is hard not to do in the modern era) that it is impossible to know who made us and why. In other words, we cannot know the true meaning and purpose of our lives. All we can do is make up some Sarte-ian fantasy meaning and purpose for our lives, which we do because life is too hard or "angsty" without it. Of course, that smacks of a proof right there (that "The Maker" instilled a desire for that knowledge in us. So, either "The Maker" who by the way, could be a he, she or an it, is a cruel maker that delights in our suffering or The Maker did provide a way for us to know he/she/it and we should pursue that knowledge, because of the apparent awesomeness of The Maker and our desperate need.
It seemed reasonable or "logical" to conclude that if we were made and we had this terrific desire to know instilled in us, that "The Maker" probably revealed him/her/itself to us. This conclusion though is definitely based on a prior conclusion, that The Maker is Benevolent and not Malevolent. Of course, that is not an all or nothing judgment. It doesn't have to be. You just have to see (which again seems reasonable or "logical") The Maker cares about us.
That The Maker cares about us is proven, I think, by the way "life" seems to reward certain behaviors and punish others. "Life" seems to guide us to take care of ourselves and others. We sort of lost faith in this in the modern era, but cooperation really is superior to competition. Moreover, in our "free market" economics we've sort of made a religion out of competition, which makes sense in a way, because economics really is more about how to distribute wealth, which is a moral decision, not a "scientific" one. But, if we step out of the madness and look at it, any reasonable person concludes that free trade, offshoring and usury are basically destroying America. So, life is sort of punishing America for being too competitive and not cooperative enough (that is, within it's own national family or "house"). It's just like the battle of the sexes. Baby boomers grew up watching their parent's battle for control of the household, instead of cooperating with each other. So, if you reasonably accept these lessons we see all around us, in our own families and in our national family, then we should "logically" and "scientifically" conclude that life rewards cooperation and thus, The Maker appears to be kind of a nice maker :chef:
Therefore, this benevolent maker (feeds us, clothes us, makes it rain, and the sun to shine) would have probably provided a revelation of itself to us. Furthermore, that revelation would have likely come to us long before micro computers and transistor radios, in other words, it should be ancient. Ancient knowledge about this topic comes basically in the form of "religion."
So, the dilemma as I saw it was to prove that one religion was superior to all other religions of the world. Not in a sports competition sense, but in the sense of real gold being superior to fool's gold or gold mining being superior to alchemy or reality being superior to fantasy. In other words, you had to violate our modern culture's most sacred taboo. I guess there's another problem here though. That is, why shouldn't all religions of the world be equally valid? The question there is, is the world basically ordered or disordered? Well, in the modern era we are taught by "physics" that beneath the order we all see and experience in the world is really just a thin veneer of order and, if we had ultra expensive scientific equipment, super advanced degrees, outrageously high intelligence and worked like a dog since we were 2 years old we might be able to peer beneath the thin veneer and see that the world really is complete chaos. Now, I had already logically concluded that our rulers had lied about so many things, that I didn't need much to convince me that they were lying about this. Quite frankly, they weren't using this kind of "physics" for anything, other than convincing people that life was essentially disordered. You didn't need to know it to put a man on the moon, so it seemed like it was philosophy posing as science.
So, I'm ready for my quest now. Why is Christianity the real thing and every other religion is bogus?
For one, I want Christianity to be true, because it is the religion of my ancestors and I want to honor them. That's normal. If you aren't like that, something is wrong with you. So, I wouldn't blame an atheist or Jєωιѕн kid for wanting to defend his dad's "religion," because he wanted to honor his dad.
Second, look at what Christianity has produced. Life seems to reward a belief in Christianity and punish a disbelief. Just look at the modern era and look at the cultures other religions have produced. Like Jim Morrison mocked in The Doors tune, "The End" (made famous in the film, "Apocalypse Now"), "the west is the best" is in fact, the truth! The West is/was the best! It isn't hyper-ethnocentricism that makes me conclude that. It's the facts! Any reasonable/logical/scientific/honest person comes to that conclusion! But you've got to get past the anti-Christian propaganda. Take The Spanish Inquisition. The real history of that makes the Catholic church look wonderful and The Spanish great, while making the Jєωs look like backstabbing jerks and the muslims look like vicious killers, but the version we're all taught teaches us that Catholic Monks were basically perverted and sadistic freaks, that the world would be far better without! Well, that's what you're up against.
There's pre-Christian Mexico. There's one version you're taught in school and another you see in a film like Mel Gibon's "Apocalypto." Did Christianity lift savages up out of their ignorance, barbarism and misery or did it destroy a superior culture? You've got to win the debate for the catholic missionaries and the culture they brought to the new world. Otherwise, we should all worship the sun and eat people in weird rituals :ready-to-eat:
There's Voodoo culture from Africa! You've got all these rock n rollers who are into that stuff. Peter Gabriel's song, "shock the monkey" is full of voodoo ritual, which he apparently traveled to Africa to learn first hand and presumably practices. And why not, just look at the roots of rock n roll! So, if Voodoo is a better religion, than Christianity or if it's just as good, then I guess Rock n Roll is just as good or maybe better than Handel's Messiah or Gregorian Chant. But, I don't think so! I think if you listen to rock n roll, it makes you stupid and provokes you to do bad things, but if you listen to Mozart it makes you smarter and provokes you to do good things. But then again, you have to accept that good and bad exist, but this just takes you back to order vs disorder.
Christianity provides more than any other religion to the believer. Martial arts for example are really cool and Buddhist monks are largely credited for that and that's fine, but there's more to buddhist culture than karate. Ultimately, it's a dead end, compared to Christianity. Islam is the same way and so is Old Testament Judaism and of course, тαℓмυdic Judaism. The major problem of 20th Century psychology is to resolve fear, shame and guilt. How do you do that without Christ? What does reincarnation tell you to do? Come back and do better in your next life. Do you know anybody who's doing that? I don't! Everyone I know is a sinner!
Look at that movie with robert de niro, "the mission." He does something stupid and very bad (typical human). Then, he doesn't want to take care of himself anymore. He just wants to punish himself. Then he insists on doing some terribly hard and dangerous penance. All why? because he has to resolve the guilt inside of him. Well, if we are made and our Maker made us this way and this Maker appears to care about us, then The Maker should have provided some reasonable way for us to deal with all the stupid and bad things we would inevitably do! That, I think is the way these arguments are made. There is no lab test that will prove this. But it can be reasoned out and outside of some spiritual experience, what else have you got, but your feelings and your reason to guide you to The Maker. Maybe a little help from that Maker?
In the end, it is still a leap of faith, but the gap can be made pretty small, with reason and feelings can play a legitimate, but ultimately subservient role too, in the search for "The Maker." And, of course, there is the role that The Maker may be playing itself, which I think Christianity calls "grace."
O.k., so if you make it that far, then you have to chose a Christian church. Why Catholicism? Oh boy! Well, The Roman Catholic Church makes lots of claims and that's fine, but what do those mean to a modern? You might as well be speaking chinese. A modern who converts should conclude, if they know any history, that Christianity in The West is basically a Catholic enterprise. And, it's still here! After 16 centuries, it's here and it's the biggest church in the world! If you want a lifeboat to survive modernism, it looks like a pretty good ship. Just look at empires as they fall apart. What do you have to cling to as they break apart? You need a "home." The Catholic Church is a big boat, that has survived the break up of many powerful empires. "A shelter in a time of storm." You want to join some dying splinter group, as you watch your city destroyed around you? If you're suicidal, maybe, but not if you want to survive. That, I think is The Catholic Churches biggest selling point. Second to that, is the wealth of tradition and knowledge which it possesses. In that regard, it should seem unique to anyone, regardless of their beliefs. Catholic scholarship seems second to none and it seems pretty dominant among the best writers in America. From an outsiders perspective, it should be quite appealing. Of course, there's the modern changes to the church and that's a bummer, but it's the modern era and it seems likely that those will pass away, with the modern era.
Topic: How is Faith logical? (Read 1615 times)