Tag: Catholic

Catholic Church Says Agnostics Indifferent

This is my third and final pitch on how the Catholic Church (RCC) views the non-believer community. The words of the Catechism (in italics) try to parse clarity of agnosticism. But, I think it still fits into what I’m trying to get at: the RCC is no expert on anything outside her own stained-glass windows. While these paragraphs twist being agnostic into a bad light, I end with my own view of agnosticism.

  • 2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

So let it be written, so let it be wrong. Again, the CCC tries to decorate the tree of logic with ornaments from other trees. First the basics. How many forms? Agnostic is the view that ultimate reality (such as a deity) is probably unknowable. I am atheist and I agree with that. It is a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods. That’s it. No forms. Easy button pushed. If the author of paragraph 2127 can prove the existence of god, just do it, man!

  • 2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

Same wrong song, second verse. Anyone can do any of these things. A believer of any religion, an atheist, or an agnostic can search for god (among other things),  be indifferent, question existence (or science), have a sluggish moral conscience, or exercise practical atheism. None of that is confined to agnostics. Furthermore, nonpracticing RCs can be living the life of practical atheism. Anyone can.

I don’t care what anyone says, an invisible deity (as well as many other things) is impossible to prove or disprove.

Throw whatever kind of arguments you want on the fire, we are all essentially agnostic. Nobody knows. Some swing hard to thinking god exists, some are playing a game with Pascal’s Wager, while others of us are confidently smug in the certainty that there are no gods. In between everyone else slides along a scale that excludes nobody. That makes us all agnostic. It also makes the term useless.

It tells us nothing more than how a person chooses to identify, which, when you think about it, is what this entire discussion has been about.

If you say you believe in a god or gods, then you are a believer. If you cannot say that you believe god exists, then you are an atheist. It may be a weak, flippy-floppy, and unsure atheism. But a non-believer is what you are.

Yes, there may be a god, a devil, a tooth fairy, and one each leprechaun under my bed. But I am uncertain and that should be good enough.

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means. ~ Clarence Darrow

Catholic Church Imputes Atheism to Believers

This is my second discussion dealing with The Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) positions on atheism as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Two numbered paragraphs from the CCC are in italics followed by my retort.

2125 — Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

The first part of the above would be improved by saying “…it denies the probability of the existence of any gods…” but the struggle here is with truth and clarity. I use the plural for all deities. Keep in mind that the RCC agrees with me about all gods except theirs, be it one, two, or a trinity. Would this mean that the RCC sins against the virtue of other religions?

Many Christians are 100% certain that one god exists, yet they reject virtually everything about the Catholic faith and the Church. They also get a lot wrong about the RCC, but is that not sin?

Atheists simply conclude there is no god. That is a little different than rejecting, a word used to mislead the misled. Indeed, many contemporary atheists reject religion for two reasons. First, since there is no god, religion is pointless. Second, religion is harmful.

If you want more on how religion is harmful, read Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless by Greta Christina. I will soon post a review of Christina’s book.

Regarding the impunability of the offense, I ask no forgiveness, nor do I credit any religion for my conclusion that no gods exist. A big up yours to the writer who would suggest such shallowness on the part of people who would subject themselves to threats of death or violence by the people of god for simply telling the truth. Many people claim a belief in god (or gods) and reject all organized religion. That’s a good start. But they are not atheist.

However, there is a valid point made when the Catechism implies that some believers (without saying evangelistic Protestants) contribute to atheism. I know many atheists who would agree, but in my case nothing about any religion or the Bible contributed to my conclusion about any gods. Indeed, the failure of religion to address reality and truth reinforce my already embraced convictions that no gods have ever existed, and that religion is generally bad.

2126 — Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God. Yet, “…to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God…. For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart.”

If there is no god, humans are autonomous. That is just how it works. It is called secular self-government, self-determination, or if you like, separation of church and state. This truth has been a thorn in the side of religion for as long as there has been such a thing. The basic assumption of most Christianity is that atheists will spend an eternity suffering in Hell along with many others, most of whom simply slid off the rails of righteousness in the eyes of a god or some religion. What is dignified about that? Threatening, yes. This paragraph has no credibility, in my view.

Be it because of ignorance or anger, the CCC has a lot wrong about atheism. I think the one thing they do have correct is that contemporary atheism is as much a threat to all religion as free thinking is to all despotism and for similar reasons.

“The Catholics get rid of the difficulty by setting up an infallible Pope, and consenting formally to accept his verdicts, but the Protestants simply chase their own tails. By depriving revelation of all force and authority, they rob their so-called religion of every dignity. It becomes, in their hands, a mere romantic imposture, unsatisfying to the pious and unconvincing to the judicious.” ― H.L. Mencken, H.L. Mencken on Religion

Catholicism Challenges Atheism

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

This poetic quote from the Book of Ecclesiastes applies to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its interest in and argument with atheism.

This is my first (and longest) essay about how the RCC officially views atheism and my retort. I used the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as my primary resource for the official stand. It was produced by the Vatican and approved (blessed?) by a pope.

I don’t expect the RCC to know much about or to understand atheism (they are not atheist). During Vatican II, they tried. I do expect them to be honest, even if that means saying we don’t know. Maybe they feel that if they were honest, they might provide support to non-belief. Perhaps they would. I was Roman Catholic (RC), so I know that church officials should understand the frustration when others get you wrong. Even many Catholics do not understand their faith, much less Protestants and non-Christians.

I prefer to charge the writers of the Catechism with ignorance rather than malfeasance. Yet they seem to equivocate and create things that are not contextually correct. I realize that the text on atheism was written for the faithful to ensure that they reject any forms of thought leading to atheism. The CCC says, “Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.” I expect that. But they got a lot wrong.

In the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, John Paul II declared the CCC a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

The following, paraphrased or quoted in italics, are taken from the CCC.

Forms (or phenomena) of Atheism

(see CCC paragraphs 2123-2124)

Atheists either do not perceive man’s vital bond to God or they explicitly reject it.

If there was or is a god for man or woman to bond to, we’d be quite bondable. To us, this is like discussing the contents of a vacuum. It makes no sense. But worse, it implies and encourages the idea that atheists reject a god that exists, which is not the case. One cannot reject that which does not exist. God is a myth. How does one reject myth?

It follows, however, that if no god exists, all religions, which are man-made, are coincidently rejected. When you believe that the priest does Mass in place of a god (Jesus), and that the wheat wafer is the actual god (Jesus), and you do so for two-thousand years, it is a huge mental leap to understand the non-existence of your basic premise: a god. Consider this: is it possible for a practicing Roman Catholic not to perceive man’s vital bond to God? Of course, it is. But would that make him or her atheist? No!

Atheism takes many forms (different phenomena):

Belief in a god or gods and the multitude of accompanying religions do indeed take many forms. Philosophies and world views take many forms. Not so for atheism. This may be the most difficult concept for people to grasp, especially members of organized religions such as the Vatican-based, bureaucratic, RCC. Maybe it’s too simple for them.

Few believers (if any today) conclude on their own that there is a god. However, virtually all atheists conclude (to varying degrees) that no god exists. A person in Africa, another in South America, a third in Europe, and an Eskimo floating on the Bering Sea may have different opinions and philosophies, but their atheism would be the same: gods do not exist or are at least very unlikely. Other thoughts and opinions probably will be different, but on the one single issue, they see that the same way.

One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to life on earth (space and time).

Or, in my preferred words, right here, right now. Practical materialism is a philosophical concept that applies to the rise of health and wealth Christian religious denominational beliefs and practices. It is not a form or type of atheism, although any person may be atheist and accept or follow it. This mixes two independent things and misleads people who read the Catechism. I live in America. I want to have my health and enough money. I would like to think that is practical. RC religious are paid employees with health insurance. They are no less materialistic than I.

As far as materialism is concerned, is not unbridled capitalism focused on materialism? And the Vatican? Good grief. The RCC is no stranger to materialism. As we say in Texas, that sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black (Trappists notwithstanding).

And yes, a good life on earth is what many atheists work hard to make happen. It is very much a part of the anti-religious sentiment held by many (probably most) atheists, because religion with an eye toward life after death tends to degrade the value and importance of life on Earth. I would not accuse the RCC of that. But not believing in any afterlife, much less a permanent one, has nothing to do with practical materialism. Here again, the Catechism, its writers, and approvers are misleading the Catholic faithful.

Atheistic humanism which sees man as having supreme control of his (or her) own history.

This is another deceptive twisting of truth. For example, all Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics. And, some Christians do not consider any Catholics to be Christian. Many (about 75%) Humanists are atheist, but not all. And not all atheists are humanists. I’m not. Humanism is a philosophy relating to the role of mankind, whereas atheism is the conclusion that no gods exist. I doubt if anyone controls the past or even thinks they (or we) can. If the Catechism were to say that Humanists see man as having control or responsibility for the future, that might be closer to the truth.

Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

Any person’s philosophy could be all of this, but that does not define atheism. I am sort of stuck on the liberation of man through economic and social liberation thing. I am a contemporary atheist, so I should see it that way. Even the RCC would agree that some religions do thwart a better life; many Muslim sects, for example.

Important note: all religion is not the RCC. Some very clearly do exactly and openly what we accuse them of.

Indeed, when it is all about life after death, earthly progress can be thwarted. However, I do not see the RC Church having that problem nearly as much as the more evangelical crowd. There are topics such as birth control (practiced by many RCs), stem cell research, end of life or right to die, and abortion issues that the RCC would be pleased to force on others, including atheists. Thus, discouraging or preventing progress and people’s right to make choices (pursuit of happiness?).

Bill Reynolds 3/11/2019

“I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds.” ~ from The Unbeliever and Christians, in Camus, Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays, [1948] 1964, p. 48.

Catholicism Explains Athesism

Goal

I am in the process of writing a few short essays about how the Catholic Church views atheism, agnosticism, and (by default) much of Protestantism. I intend to present the Church’s outlook in the sense of Roman Catholic leadership and authority of that old religion, and The Church as an institution. We do not need another tiresome bashing of any of the -isms, but the errors of understanding should be corrected, even if that boils down to my opinion. I shall not address the sexual abuse problems.

Credentials

I am a cradle catholic who was raised in the church. I remained a catholic (either practicing or not) from my baptism at about 8 days of age until my mid-sixties, when I finally began my apostate transition into a convinced atheist. I have attended protestant churches with my family as a Catholic member, but I never claimed to be Episcopalian, Methodist, Disciple of Christ (First Christian), or another Christian variant, and no one ever seemed to care. I would not like to be called a catholic-atheist, but I would not object too loudly, oxymoron or not.

I grew up in a multidenominational Christian family, which included elements of Presbyterian and Lutheran by intermarriage, and Episcopalian by my choice. I have read all books of the Bible. I attended Bible Study Fellowship (Baptist) for a time. I taught Bible Studies and Religious Education classes to both children and adults for years in a large Catholic Parish (church). I served as a church leader in several ministerial roles including four years on the Parish Council, the last two as the President.

I have read The Catechism of the Catholic Church in its entirety, and reread passages many times. I may not recall all of it. My copy was multi-colored with highlights and underlines and was well-worn with yellow tabs marking more than a hundred pages. It’s a really big book (sorry, AA).

Since coming out by saying, “Yes. I am atheist” I have read, written, watched, and attended; atheist books, articles, blogs, discussions, and videos as a manner of self-education regarding the confusing maze known as free-thinking, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, or other unbelief-ism variants. The pile gets higher and deeper with all the science, philosophy, psychology, and miscellaneous facts that one must plow into to protect oneself from the flow of self-righteous animosity and self-pity of the people who demand that I know as much as any god (and then some). As research for this effort, I travelled back in time to personally observe how the universe came to be, since I could no longer fill that gap with any god as a scapegoat for my ignorance.

Purpose

My reason for this is to justify the atheist (mine) point of view and to point out the errors of the leadership of the largest Christian denomination in the world. I believe that in background, education, ability, and desire, I am suitably qualified to write these essays. I want to defend atheism and all forms of free thinking. I do not wish to attack anyone or any religion (for now), but I will disagree. So, it should be safe for believers to read my essays. I cannot predict what will happen in comments or how individual interpretation may affect reactions. But I promise to be nice.

Bill Reynolds 3/6/2019

Pope Quote