As a former Atheist myself I too had similar questions. Questioning begins the journey towards truth. Here are my answers (in black) to Mr Lee's questions (in blue).
<<1. Why a person? Even if you believe that morality is, to use Leah's words, "some kind of Platonic form, remote from the plane that humans exist on"... how do you get from there to the belief that morality is embodied by a person? What evidence or chain of reasoning leads you to conclude that morality isn't just a set of impersonal, self-existent principles or laws, like mathematics, but a conscious being who has thoughts, desires, preferences and emotions that are analogous to the thoughts, desires, preferences and emotions of human beings?
>>
Sacerdotus replies:
All human beings have a conscience. To date, no Atheist or over zealous evolutionist has been able to determine why a conscience exists specifically in human beings and how it developed, biologically speaking. Some assume that the conscience developed as a safety mechanism; however, why did only human beings develop this feature? If it did develop gradually by trial and error, then how many tries did primitive man take before realizing what right and wrong were? How many times did primitive man have to murder each other until it realized that murder was not beneficial to the survival of the species and therefore immoral?
Lee requests Libresco for evidence for her claims but fails to provide any for his claim that morality are "self-existent principles." How can anything "self exist?" He fails to address this. His own words hint at morality being a person that is absolute, or as he writes: "self-existent principles."
He also erroneously assumes that mathematics is self existent. Mathematics is merely abstract language created by man that describes the quantitative and qualitative properties of matter in a particular state in space and time. In other words, it is a means by which man measures and defines the form of matter as it exists in space and time.
<<2. Why Roman Catholicism? I see no way to get to the conclusion that morality is a person, but even if you did, how do you then justify the vastly larger step of asserting that this person is identical with the concept of God as commonly believed in by one particular religion out of all the countless thousands of religions on this planet? In other words, why choose Roman Catholicism specifically, rather than deism, Quakerism, Unitarianism, or any other religion? Taking this step requires you to assent to a huge list of factual propositions, none of which, so far as I can see, can possibly be deduced even if we take the personhood of morality as a starting axiom.
Here are some of the ones that I can name off the top of my head:
- God is omnipotent
- God is omniscient
- God is not made of matter or energy
- God is the creator of the universe
- God is male
- God is three persons in one
- One of the three persons of God was incarnated as a human being, was conceived without sex, suffered death by crucifixion as a vicarious punishment for the collective sins of humanity, was resurrected three days later and ascended to heaven, from where he will eventually return to impose judgement on all human beings
- God listens and responds to prayer, sometimes by miraculously suspending the laws of nature in the petitioner's favor
- People have immaterial souls that embody their memories and personality traits and that survive the physical deaths of their bodies
- People's souls live only one mortal life before passing on to an afterlife of either eternal reward or eternal suffering, which is decided principally by whether a person genuinely believed the other items on this list
- Some deceased people are "saints" who may be persuaded to intercede with God on our behalf for certain types of requests
- God's will for human beings is most truly embodied by a particular denomination of Christianity, the Catholic church, which is led by a man who has the power to speak infallibly on God's behalf whenever he chooses to invoke it
- Catholic priests, and Catholic priests only, have the supernatural power to perform a special ceremony in which ordinary bread and wine are miraculously transformed into God's flesh and blood without changing in any detectable way, and God wishes believers to consume these items on a regular basis in an act of ritual cannibalism
- Only men are permitted to become priests, bishops, cardinals and popes
- Priests must be celibate and should not marry
- God does not supply conclusive proof for the other items on this list because faith and obedience are more virtuous than reasoning based on evidence
This list could go on and on. What evidence or chain of reasoning leads you to believe that all, or any, of these things are true? (I take Leah's declaration of Catholicism as evidence that she now believes some or most of these. If she rejects most of them, then what information is conveyed by her calling herself a Catholic?)>>
Sacerdotus replies:
I have asked myself the same question. Others have asked me the same. My response is that God is God regardless of how man defines Him. The underlining trend among religion is that there is a Creator or a First Cause. No matter what religion one is, there is only ONE Creator observing the one who practices the religion as well as the one that does not.
God transcends human intellect and perception. That being said, man can only define God in the capacity that his/her mind allows it. Hence, some cultures have a plurality of gods with each representing a quality of the one or main god. This is true in every day life in every society. For example, the mother figure. We all have a mother. There is no getting around this fact. We all describe or define our mother in different ways. Regardless of those many ways, the function remains: she is the mother. The same applies with God. No matter what name man gives God or how many gods man believes comprises the divine essence, the trend remains that there is a god.
As for any of the ideas listed by Lee being possible, the answer is yes. IF one believes in a God that has no limits, wrote the laws of the universe, then nothing shall be impossible for this God.
In my journey towards Faith, Catholicism spoke to me more rationally than the other religions I've studied. I'm sure Leah Libresco knows what I'm talking about. Catholicism is the only Faith that does use Reason.
The Scientific Method was developed by a Franciscan Friar named Roger Bacon. The "Big Bang" theory was formulated by a catholic priest named Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Science practically as we know it exists because of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has its own scientific institutions. No other religion can claim this. Faith is not opposed to Reason. I never understood why Atheists attempt to hold claim to Reason and Science when in fact the Church formulated them as we know them today. It was the Catholic Church who created hospitals, and universities. The cap and gowns used in graduations originate from the priest's cassock and biretta!
Without the Catholic Church, society would not be as advanced as it is now. The Church laid the foundation for civilization as we know it. During the age of exploration, missionaries educated the natives and brought back their knowledge to Europe. One such example is that of Franciscan Placide Tempels who wrote about Bantu Philosophy. I can go on and on, but we all get the point of how valuable the Church has been to societies throughout the globe and in every time period.
<<3. What about the bad stuff? Neither the Bible nor the Catholic church sets an enviable moral example, as I know Leah is aware. There are verses which endorseappalling violence, including more than one instance of divinely sanctioned genocide. There are verses which explicitly sanction slavery, which endorse thelesser worth of women, which command us to murder friends and loved ones of different religions. The Catholic church considers this book to be, at the very least, the most perfect, admirable and unsurpassable book on earth. Is this an assessment with which Leah now agrees?
And then there are the missteps in the church's own history, which cast considerable doubt on its claim to be a moral exemplar. There's the infamous Index of Forbidden Books, in which church authorities for several centuries presumed to instruct the entire Western world on which ideas could not be expressed. There are the popes who sanctioned the slave trade. There was the period of centuries in which the church said that theocracy was the only legitimate form of government (which lasted until 1906 at least). If the Catholic church had any privileged access to the true source of morality, are these the outcomes we'd expect? Through the centuries, has the church as a whole been noticeably more peaceful, more ethical or more compassionate than any non-Catholic society around them?>>
Sacerdotus replies:
I touched on this issue in my blog http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/11/evil-bible.html. Lee here shows his ignorance of what the Bible really is. This is typical of Atheists. The Bible is God's Word, or how God has ordered/shaped human history in order to achieve the salvation of it. The stories or verses that seem to be violent must be understood in context. One cannot read the Bible as if it were happening in one's current time.
It is important for a reader to know the situation surrounding particular verses, the intention of the author, and how it should apply to the salvific mission of God. Laws that seem to promote violence reflect the culture and justice that existed at the time those laws were written. For example, the US Constitution was created to protect debt holders in the newly formed States. Are we now in 2012 going to condemn the Constitution because it was created to be "pro-1%?" It would be absurd to think that.
The Bible can be used to justify practically anything. During Slave times in America, both Abolitionists and Slave Holders cited verses that "supported" their ideas. However, a serious reader of Scripture would read verses carefully and put him/herself in the situation from which the verse originated. Slavery in Scripture is not the same as Slavery in America. Ideas regarding women and justice in Scripture reflect on the ideas that existed at the time.
Moreover, the Church has never done evil; rather, people IN the Church have misrepresented her. We cannot attack the entire institution based on the flaws of her members. Yes, there have been and are Catholics who have done evil and/or things in poor judgment either for ambitious reasons, or just due to ignorance. To discredit the Catholic Church because of fallen human nature is unfair.
<<4. No, seriously, what about the bad stuff? In the modern day, the Catholic church continues to be an influential enemy of moral progress worldwide. Its relentless anti-gay bigotry has extended the denial of equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. It's closed adoption agencies because it would rather see children remain orphans than place them with gay couples. Its pseudoscientific scare-mongering about the efficacy of condoms has almost certainly caused millions of people in poor, uneducated regions of the world to die from AIDS and other STDs. Its opposition to safe, legal contraception and abortion has likewise caused the deaths of millions of women, and its advocacy against family planning contributes to whole societies being trapped in grim cycles of self-perpetuating poverty. And then, of course, there's the still-unfolding sex abuse scandal, in which a worldwide network of bishops conspired together for decades to protect child rapists, cover up their crimes, and intimidate their victims into silence, ensuring that said predators could rape and molest a far larger number of children than they'd have otherwise been able to.
Whether or not Leah agrees with any of these policies, I want to hear how she responds to the charge that by supporting the church - either with her money, or simply with her very public declaration of allegiance - she thereby makes herself complicit in them.
The Catholic church is hardly the only institution in the world that's done evil, of course, but there's a significant and obvious moral difference between an authoritarian church and other kinds of institutions. If you became a citizen of a democratic country, you could fairly claim that you wanted to use your vote for positive change. But the church isn't a democracy; it's run by men who select their own successors, and ordinary Catholics have no voice in its governance.
And all the evidence of the last few years shows an accelerating conservative trend, as the church authorities increasingly crack down on independent thought and silence or oust the people who dissent. Now of all times, when progressive people are leaving Catholicism in droves, what persuades you that this organization is the one whose banner you most want to carry?>>
Sacerdotus replies:
The things Lee lists are immoral. The Catholic Church can never approve of so-called "Gay Marriage," nor can it approve of the abuse of the act of sex and human life. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. This union brings about offspring that continues a society. Homosexual couples cannot provide this naturally. It is irrational to equate a natural male and female union which allows for reproduction with that of a same sex one that does not. It is a social construct that attempts to equate itself to the natural union between one man and one woman. If the Church or society allows so-called "Gay Marriage," then where do we draw the line? Polygamists will want to marry their multiple partners. Pedophiles are currently requesting the same equal rights the LGBT community is requesting. They both use "love" as a defense and reason for their push for "marriage rights." (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/10/pedophilia-rights.html)
The Church does not use any pseudo science in regards to condoms and contraception. Producers of these items list their effectiveness and side affect on their labels! Condoms do not protect anyone 100%. Anyone who believes that putting on this device will save them from STD infection is delusional. Moreover, studies have shown that condoms are not alleviating the increases of HIV infection and pregnancy. I have blogs here linking to journals with the statistics. (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/11/let-kids-be-kids.html)
Abortion harms women more than anything else. It causes both physical and psychological harm. Moreover, killing an unborn child can never be equated to medicine. Polls are showing that the Pro Abortion movement is losing ground. More and more people are leaning towards Pro-Life views. Abortion can never be moral because it is the intentional killing of a human life. It puts mother against child. It degrades humanity into a mere commodity that one can either chose to have exist or have killed. (http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(08)00238-0/abstract) (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/10/prochoice-debunked.html)
The sex abuse scandals are small compared to the general society. Sexual abuse occurs more among families than with priests. The Catholic Church never mandated anyone to abuse minors or protect criminals. These are unfortunately the consequences of the culture and understanding at the time the crime was committed. In many instances, psychologists informed bishops that priests were cured and fit for ministry. Moreover, some law officials gave advice that was directed to find mutual agreement among both parties instead of going to trial. This is done in many court settings today. How many times have lawyers of both parties settle out of court?
The scandals of the Church exist due to the progressive infiltration that has attempted to bring her down. So-called "free thought" and "liberty" ran rampant after Vatican II. This dissent opened up the door for the scandals we see today. When one loses sight of the moral teachings of the Church, then anything can and will happen. Imagine if the Constitution were open to free interpretation instead of interpretation by the courts. There would be a disaster in America. The Vatican is cracking down on this and it has nothing to do with conservatism, but rather, orthodoxy. There is no need to add to what Jesus and the Apostles taught.
<<5. What advice do you have for atheists? Last, but certainly not least, I'm intensely curious as to Leah in her new position would say to those of us who are still atheists. Would you counsel us to repent and convert for the sake of our immortal souls? Do you think we're fine as we are? Do you think that atheism is ever a rational or reasonable worldview?>>
Sacerdotus replies:
My advice as a former Atheist is to try it before knocking it. Have an open mind. A true rationalist/scientist would begin with a hypothesis and then test it. Atheism is quick to reject God and Faith without even making a hypothesis and putting it to the test.
See my blogs for more info:
I would personally counsel Atheists to rationalize the reality that nothing cannot produce something. The order in this universe cannot be coincidental. No mathematician has ever proposed a statistical probability that shows how the universe came to be in the way that it did for the mere fact that it is impossible.
I don't think Atheists are fine in the sense of how they limit their ability to reason. In my opinion, Atheism is a fraud. For far too long I relied on its false understanding of logic. Its pretense and irrational conclusions. Its narrow view of science and disconnection from common sense. It is a placebo for the contrarian. An appeasement for those who are angry with God or religion.
