FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is Faith logical?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(03-25-2012, 03:23 PM)ggreg Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-24-2012, 01:52 PM)Dellery Wrote: [ -> ]St. Thomas' "First Mover" argument, combined with statistics, probability, principals like Ocam's razor, the Shroud of Turin, and the Miracle of the Sun, pretty much destroy almost any argument a psychologically enslaved atheist can muster.

Somebody more intelligent than I will probably further elaborate, but Faith is indeed very logical.

The thing I don't understand about Atheism is that it has either been tried in Soviet Russia and Communist China and North Korea in which case it was a HORRIBLE failure that lead to famine, murders and suffering - or - it has not been tried at all (some atheists communism was sort of religious) which make it a pretty risky unknown and a hypothetical construct.

Can atheists really believe that if men simply stopped believing in God or religion and just became rational creatures they would not do harm to each other for resources, oil, women, gold?  Seems to me that this is exactly what WOULD happen and indeed does happen in places where God is ignored.  History is full of examples of risk taking sons of bitches, fighting, scheming and clawing their way to the top and then behaving like despots when they get there.

Without a God there can be no absolute morality or code to abide by.  What code you choose to live by then becomes entirely pragmatic and any altruism you show entirely voluntary.  As soon as you need to or want to, you will lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape and torture in order to survive.

Why would an atheist solider go and sacrifice himself in a war to save his country or friend.  This life is all an atheist has.  They logically should want to cling onto it by any and every means necessary even if it means denouncing their neighbour to get their larger apartment.  Which is, of course, exactly what happened in the Soviet Union.  Many people were denounced by neighbours so those neighbours could move into a larger apartment.  The NKVD made those sorts of deals with people so that they had witnesses.  They were rewarded for their loyalty to the party.

Atheism exists in order for some people to have a rationale that justifies doing whatever they want to do.

Believing in God has consequences, consequences many people don't want to face.
This thread I started on CAF is starting to take off.  I'm addressing three faithless people so far, trying to categorize things into axioms to first find our shared beliefs, that we may go from there. 

I do not know where this will go.  I don't typically try to argue in terms of Logic, so, I hope I don't screw it up.
I think I can contribute a little here.  First, as Tim said, Faith is not simply a matter of logic; it's also a gift from God. 

That being said, it actually is a matter of faith that one can know the existence of God via pure reason.  That was defined, if memory serves, by Vatican I, having been argued by St. Thomas Aquinas long before.

I would tend to disagree that the arguments for the existence of God as they are found in the Summa Theologiae are sufficient-- not because I think they are in any way insufficient in themselves, but because they are summaries, and most of us moderns don't have a very good understanding of the background ideas that are going into them.  I highly recommend Edward Feser's Aquinas and The Last Superstition:  The New Atheism for a more thorough (which is not to say easy) explanation of St. Thomas' arguments.  I found the former to be a better exposition of the argument for the existence of God, but the latter was a more enjoyable book-- a thoroughly enjoyable and completely logical rant against modern philosophy.  Aquinas, by contrast, is less polemic, but possibly more instructive.

Your friend's argument that faith is illogical is complete nonsense.  He's assuming a priori that faith is in a category where logic simply isn't used.  Again, that's nonsense.  Logic can be used with any truth claims.  I can use logic about unicorns, whether they exist or no.  Likewise, I can use logic about God, whether he exists or no.  And about atheists, whether they exist or no.

What he's really complaining about is just the sort of thing that you've tracked matters down to:  ya'll don't have the same assumptions/axioms.  He's just assuming that his are "logical" and yours are "faith", as best I can understand what you're telling us about him.  From what you're saying, it doesn't sound like he would distinguish between "logic" and "reason", either.

For the reasonableness of Faith, it's hard to do better (mea sententia) than St. Thomas' Summa Contra Gentiles I.6

Lastly, I've been an atheist, even though I was brought up as a fairly conservative Methodist.  I became an atheist strictly because I thought that what I was being taught was true in church had insufficient justification and was irreconcilable with what I was taught in (public, atheist) school.  I had been a Methodist out of intellectual laziness; I actually became an atheist out of zeal for the truth (and for logic!).  Of course, that is almost certainly a pretty rare reason to become an atheist...

All that said, I find what Dr. Bombay said, that he doesn't believe in atheists, immensely amusing.
Pages: 1 2 3