Dear Kevin,
You seem to be sincere in your 'non-belief'. Yet as an intellectual, I think
you are yet researching...
May God help you in your endeavours! Nobody can force you to think in a
different way. You only should find the way.
Thanks for your exposition!
You wrote: > Atheism arose from a default position of God's (gods' ?)
existence
over the millenia prior to rational thought. Ever since prehistoric
humanity looked to gods for answers to natural phenomena, it has been
assumed that there was an omnipotent, omniscient creator God.
*Human thought began in wonder of the natural phenomena. Myths tried to
explain the natural phenomena. Later on, philosophy refined these mythical
expressions. God became universal human experience. Religion explained it
further. Christian Faith led it still to further refinement. Atheism did
not succeed in destroying the existence of God. Natural phenomena were
explained with scientific theories to some extent. The effort is going on.
But Science has not given an ultimate explanation to the realities of the
world no 'discovered' the meaning of human existence.
You wrote: > <<Atheists believe that there can NEVER be a proof for
something that
does not exist.
*Therefore, atheists 'believe' that God does not exist. Rather, they take
for granted that God does not exist and therefore there can never be a
proof. Why should they be bothered with something that does not exist?
Nobody is asking them to prove that God exists. Can they prove that God does
not exist?
<<However, they do not impose that belief on others,
understanding that this is a concept that is arrived at through
introspection.
*Nobody should impose it on others. If that concept is arrived 'through
introspection', does it mean that God does not exist? Our Reason tells us
about it.
You wrote: >< Secular Humanism goes a step beyond that...
*Good, you found the aim of secular humanism... It is an ideal. But without
God? That is a question! Yet Vatican II alludes to such people: "Nor does
Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who,
without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge
of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth
is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the
Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that
they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have
become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who,
living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.
Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of
these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every
creature" (cf.Mk 16:16) the Church fosters the missions with care and
attention" (Lumen gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on Church, no.16).
Humanism is not relativism. We have no dogma or creed as such but we
do share ontology.
*Ontology is philosophy of Being. How does it help you?
<<That is to say we have a common understanding that
reliable knowledge comes from testing the empirical world...
*Now you are speaking of empirical science and empirical verification, not
of philosophy.
<< and that
while many useful and probably correct ideas cannot be immediately
tested, the more an idea is consistent with testable ideas, the more
likely it is to be tested.
*There can be relativism there, since there is nothing definite, no dogma
nor creed.
Which ideas? How can they be tested? empirically?
<<< It is that principle and a commitment to ethics that is the stuff of
humanism.
*Good! It is a good ideal! It is a value-point.
Atheists begin with the rejection of the gods and usually the
supernatural. For us the supernatural is by definition that which is
not empirically testable.
*Certainly they are not empirically testable. I do agree with you perfectly.
You reject 'the gods and usually the supernatural". How can you test the
values? Certainly not empirically. How do you distinguish values from
non-values?
We believe that it is is ethically wrong to believe a thing without
evidence ( This is a paraphrase of Wm. K. Clifford "the ethics of
belief" See. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialist and
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html
).
*What is evidence for you? Only empirical evidence? I read the article. it
refers to astrology, homoeopathy, quackery. I am of the opinion that science
should discuss the value of astroogy, if there is any, since stars can have
some impact on people. Homeopathy is being practised in the world. There are
medical colleges. It should be discussed with the experienced homoepaths. It
cannot be discarded. Among so-called "quacks" (curandeiros), there are
people who know some secrets and cure some diseases. One cannot
generalise... Here Science should play its role. Nobody doubts about it.
Since we weigh ideas related to the supernatural as among the least
reliable, we are non-theists.
*Therefore, "ideas related to the supernatural" can be reliable to some
extent. Why do you reject them outright? Are you agnostic?
<> But we are not nihilists or relativists. We have a standard for
establishing knowledge on which we can act.
*Which is that?
It is our approach to knowledge that distinguished us from both
atheists and the faith community. We do not expect to achieve absolute
knowledge. It is not necessary. What we have is grounded knowledge. We
have confidence not faith.
*You should know that the basis of faith is confidence (from the root
fid-es, 'faith', 'fid-ucia', 'confidence'). Precisely we have faith in God
because we thrust our God-given reason and his Revelation. Empirical testing
should give you sure knowledge. If it is 'grounded knowledge', it is not
different from 'faith-knowledge'.
Alan Levin
-----
*This was my reaction to the words of Alan Levin. It is for our reflection.
We are not going to change his stand. It is not necessary.
You wrote: >> Everything you see around you today, except for the lavish
houses of
worship and their attendant hierarchies, have been developed based on
our confidence in the scientific method. However there is a very
real danger in the encroachment of the age of endarkenment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/15/endarkenment?gusrc=rss&feed=science
What is Truth?
Fr.Ivo
From: "Nigel Britto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I never really did understand the concept of atheism, because, the
very existence of the atheists proves the existence of God. When I
first heard of atheists, my first thoughts were, how can you not
believe in something you don't believe exists?
