Explain the key arguments for Catholicism to an atheist?

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:33 am

Student: Okay, let's just say there are no demoninations. Then let's just concede that there are hundreds or thousands of variations on Catholicism. Different versions of god, his capabilities, his reasons, of jesus and his divinity, of the resurrection, of interventions/miracles in the world today, defences of the problem of evil, positions on abortion, homosexuality.

Catholicism varies wildly, regardless of whether you call different versions 'denominations.' Let's move on.

What do you mean, "the claim that there shouldn't be more than one religion is the ONLY one you can offer up any defense against?" A defense? This is one claim that seems to me a contradiction, evidence that a god did not actually reveal one religion, and that religion is man-made. It is one of many claims I can make or challenge.

What is your explanation for this apparent failure to spread his one, true religion?
Yes, unsuccessful in that people are more divergent than ever. God was supposed to reveal a religion, a path to heaven, etc. but Islam works via the same strategies, scripture, prophets, revelation, and is just as successful. So why did god let this happen? Islam is larger than Catholicism now. Are you expecting everyone to come around and become Catholic eventually?

faithfulservant · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:35 am

no...it does NOT vary widely :fyi:

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:36 am

Faithful: So yo'ure with Pax in blaming humans for the failure of humans to be catholic?
A child in Iran is born, taught by his arabic-speaking parents to learn Islam, and to follow that. He is just as vehement a believer of Allah as you are of Catholicism, and for the same reasons. Scripture that convinces him, a prophet, revelation.

how is it this child's fault? It is not man's fault that he is born into different countries, taught different religions. This is how religion spreads. Yes, they are 'ignorant' of catholicism, just as you are 'ignorant' of Islam and mormonism. But how is anyone to know the other religion is true, when they are raised in parallel circumstances. You cannot blame this on the humans, who cannot know any better.

Surely your god would have known this. If so, then the humans cannot be blamed for the failure of catholicism to really convince more than 20% of the world's population, but god can be.

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:38 am

Will Storm:

It might have been more helpful if I had just said "variants" of religious beliefs, or just pointed to different religions. I did want, however, to point to the wild divergence within catholicism itself.

It is these two claims that are incompatible, given an omnipotent god:
1) God wants us to know/follow a true religion
2) God allows circumstances that make it impossible for children to know which religion is true, such that they are born into mutually exclusive religions that they learn by accidents of geography (where they are born, and to which parents).

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:39 am

GXC:

Yes, let's talk about variations of religious belief within a single religion, as well as the many mutually-exclusive competing religions that all appeal to the same kind of evidence, rather than denominations.

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:41 am

Faithful servant: You say it does not wild varily. Care to back this up? I can point you to statistics that show disagreement about homosexuality, birth control, women's rights in the church, heaven/hell, religious exclusivity (catholicism is the only path to god or not), and other things.

Are you asserting that catholics basically agree on everything of substance? I can point you to threads on this forum where people have massively contradictory views.

Greg · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:45 am

dschiff wrote:

... Though I'm sure it might still be meaningful to you in some poetic way.

Yes, that's it. A compelling aspect of religion for me is the "poetry" of it. Which, of course, is not at all the point of this thread.

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:50 am

Greg: I find religious allegory beautiful at times, too, though I will also reach for the tanach, the bhagavad gita, the vedas and so on..

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13027

dschiff wrote:

GXC:

Yes, let's talk about variations of religious belief within a single religion, as well as the many mutually-exclusive competing religions that all appeal to the same kind of evidence, rather than denominations.

You may if you wish. What I am talking about is what "denomination" means in the statistical analysis of that particular organization.

GKC

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13027

dschiff wrote:

GKC: We already discussed this above. The national denominations of Catholicism may not actually differ so widely that they should be considered 236 separate kinds of belief. I'm readily able to concede this, as I did before.

You should also concede that, within Catholicism, there are hundred or thousands of interpretations. Different versions of god, of god's abilities, of an afterlife, of souls, of exclusivity of religion, of abortion, of homosexuality, of birth control, and on and on.

My point was only that wild divergence in religion doesn't point to a successful intervention, but to a man-made religion. I wish you would stop harping on the point that the Roman Catholic church is one religion. It is *not* constituted by one belief set. There are countless Catholics who disagree. You should concede this. It is easily apparent from this forum alone.

Also, stop insulting me. Surely, as a Christian, you are beyond this? I find divine simplicity to be an contradiction-in-terms, and your 'expert' on the subject did nothing more than mock me for a paragraph. I have talked with sophisticated theologians and clergy members who belong to top seminaries and religious organizations (some of whom, like the Archbishop of Canterbury find your idea of divine simplicity absurd as well) and I don't need to be treated like a child merely because this is your home turf. If you fail to explain or justify your arguments to me, don't blame me for having 'no grasp of the terminology'. I am capable of understanding your terminology, *and* of disagreeing with it.

The hubris is too much - I'd ask you to calm your tone down. I'm being substantially more polite here.

Those are not national denominations of Catholicism. They are (mainly) ethnically derived particular Churches within Catholicism.

However many interpretations one might find within Catholicism, if the matter involved is anything other than adiaphora, then it represents a failure to be, in fact, Catholic. What is being counted in that survey is not doctrinal distinctions, per se, but organizational distinctions, within countries.

The idea of Divine simplicity is not mine. I merely understand the basic concept. I rejoice that you grasp the terminology. I simply see no sign of any evidence of same.

As to my tone, it is what it is. I account it reasonably even. Certainly not emotional, while necessarily being judgmental, as to your performance.

It is not, in fact, my home turf. I'm a guest here.

GKC

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:55 pm

GXC: The denomination issue aside, the variance remains, regardless of whether one version is the "true" one, as well as the original challenge as to the failure of god's plan to convince people of his one, true religion after 2000 years.

This thread was about the key arguments for Catholicism, which seems to have been somewhat lost in the tangents.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13027

dschiff wrote:

GXC: The denomination issue aside, the variance remains, regardless of whether one version is the "true" one, as well as the original challenge as to the failure of god's plan to convince people of his one, true religion after 2000 years.

This thread was about the key arguments for Catholicism, which seems to have been somewhat lost in the tangents.

So I've noticed.

GKC

faithfulservant · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:47 pm

dschiff wrote:

Faithful servant: You say it does not wild varily. Care to back this up? I can point you to statistics that show disagreement about homosexuality, birth control, women's rights in the church, heaven/hell, religious exclusivity (catholicism is the only path to god or not), and other things.

Are you asserting that catholics basically agree on everything of substance? I can point you to threads on this forum where people have massively contradictory views.

dschiff...what did i actually say in response to your statement

Quote:

Catholicism varies wildly, regardless of whether you call different versions 'denominations.

had you said the opinions of the Catholic laity vary widely i would agree...however, those who agree with Church teaching do NOT... the Church teaches ONE THING about homosexuality, birth control...etc., etc..... i was pointing out your error in the choice of terminology you used... kinda like gkc was pointing out the error of your understanding of the number of denominations... it is nit-picking, but it is a very important nitpick :fyi:

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:05 pm

Faithful:

A fair point. Catholicism itself has a set decree of doctrines and is much more structured than other religions and other denominations of Christianity.
As you say, though, individuals differ in their adoption of these decrees.
Moreover, the church negates and changes its own decrees as time goes in incredibly revisionary ways.

So when I say Catholicism varies, I mean in terms of its adherents, not in terms of its hierarchy. Still an important distinction that you are making.

faithfulservant · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:27 pm

please provide some instances of when you think the Church has changed a decree that is a basic tenet of the faith ... disciplines change... dogmatic proclamations don't... thanks :wave

dschiff · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:35 pm

Faithful:

Evolution.
Limbo.
Slavery.
Cosmology.

Claimed to be infallible once, and then corrected itself. On the one hand, I appreciate the revision to modern science. On the other, I don't appreciate the claim to infallibility given how claims made so vehemently have been so wrong. Contraception, divorce, women's rights and gay rights remain in need of address.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13027

dschiff wrote:

Faithful:

Evolution.
Limbo.
Slavery.
Cosmology.

Claimed to be infallible once, and then corrected itself. On the one hand, I appreciate the revision to modern science. On the other, I don't appreciate the claim to infallibility given how claims made so vehemently have been so wrong. Contraception, divorce, women's rights and gay rights remain in need of address.

Expand, if you would on the infallibility claim. How was it once claimed, by whom, when, how was it changed, by whom, when?

GKC

faithfulservant · **Posted:** Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:55 pm

dschiff wrote:

Contraception, divorce, women's rights and gay rights remain in need of address.

of course that would be your opinion... :fyi:

as for the others, i'm a little confused as to which official dogmatic Catholic document reversed a previous official dogmatic Catholic document... i'm actually a little confused as to which of those you listed actually was a dogmatic pronouncement

for example, could you give me the lowdown about limbo ... what do you think was taught...and what is being taught now? was there a reversal...or perhaps a further clarification

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:22 pm **Posts:** 13027

faithfulservant wrote:

dschiff wrote:

Contraception, divorce, women's rights and gay rights remain in need of address.

of course that would be your opinion... :fyi:

as for the others, i'm a little confused as to which official dogmatic Catholic document reversed a previous official dogmatic Catholic document... i'm actually a little confused as to which of those you listed actually was a dogmatic pronouncement

for example, could you give me the lowdown about limbo ... what do you think was taught...and what is being taught now? was there a reversal...or perhaps a further clarification

Inquiring minds want to know.

GKC

dschiff · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:24 am

Sorry for the delay - had a thesis deadline that kept me occupied.

Limbo was ended by none other than the Pope.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo

Parents of unbaptized babies had that comfort for centuries, courtesy of Church teaching, now must grapple with a metaphysics sans limbo.

GKC, when has the churched claimed to be infallible? Since the beginning. Scripture, the papacy, etc. make claims to divinity.

See Cardinal Bellarmine on Galileo.
"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures." .... "after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture." "It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles."

And faithfulservant, indeed my opinions on gay rights, women's rights, contraception, divorce and so on are my opinions (though shared by many).

We've gotten really far off the point here.

If anyone wants to return to the arguments that convince you of the truth of your religion, I'd prefer to go there.

Cheers.

Explain the key arguments for Catholicism to an atheist?

Who is online