It still galls me that atheists require perfect evidence to believe in God, but will settle for a half-ass theory to believe in evolution.
From Richard Dawkins to Johnny A. Theist down the road, the catchcry is "There is no evidence for God". When asked exactly what type of evidence they require in order to believe, of course they would not settle for anything less than perfect evidence, the type of peer-reviewed evidence demanded by science. But, there are way too many problems with this, including that peers can only review based on their current level of knowledge and understanding. Given a few more decades, chances are that the same peers would review somewhat differently. So, pardon the irony, but science is not an exact science.
A relevant question would be: What kind of evidence would it take to go from being an atheist to, let's say, an agnostic or simply one who shuts up and reserves judgement until clearer evidence is produced? The Catholic Church abounds with such evidence. It will never be scientifically peer-reviewed because science does not yet have to tools to deal with anything supernatural. And if a scientist believed some of this evidence, chances are they wouldn't want their peers to know about it.
A dog has more sensory perception than man, but we have to accept that the tools of science are wielded by mere men. It may take centuries before science can seriously study supernatural phenomena.
So, what evidence can we gather from the Catholic Church that supports the existence of God. The question is: where to begin? Here are a few starters:
I've tried to include modern examples such as Medjugorje, which are subject to even greater and knowledgable scrutiny than those of past eras. I could have included the Fatima miracle, during which 70,000 people simultaneously witnessed an awesome solar display, but the older something is, unfortunately the more easy it is to dismiss.
I fear the problem with atheism is that its participants are generally a dishonest bunch, willing to find anything to absolve them from the necessity of studying these evidences. If they studied the scientific reports on the visionaries at Medjugorje as much as they studied their "Popular Science" magazine, there would no longer be any sensible reason to be an atheist. In fact, you'd be a fool to still call yourself an atheist.
Click here for information on the scientific investigations carried out on the Medjugorje visionaries.
From Richard Dawkins to Johnny A. Theist down the road, the catchcry is "There is no evidence for God". When asked exactly what type of evidence they require in order to believe, of course they would not settle for anything less than perfect evidence, the type of peer-reviewed evidence demanded by science. But, there are way too many problems with this, including that peers can only review based on their current level of knowledge and understanding. Given a few more decades, chances are that the same peers would review somewhat differently. So, pardon the irony, but science is not an exact science.
A relevant question would be: What kind of evidence would it take to go from being an atheist to, let's say, an agnostic or simply one who shuts up and reserves judgement until clearer evidence is produced? The Catholic Church abounds with such evidence. It will never be scientifically peer-reviewed because science does not yet have to tools to deal with anything supernatural. And if a scientist believed some of this evidence, chances are they wouldn't want their peers to know about it.
A dog has more sensory perception than man, but we have to accept that the tools of science are wielded by mere men. It may take centuries before science can seriously study supernatural phenomena.
So, what evidence can we gather from the Catholic Church that supports the existence of God. The question is: where to begin? Here are a few starters:
- Incorrupt bodies of saints (the genuine ones, yes we know there have been hoaxes)
- Stigmata (again, the genuine ones), e.g. Padre Pio
- Marian apparitions - e.g. Medjugorje, where seers still see the Blessed Virgin Mary today and which has been studied by three teams of scientists since 1981
- Eucharistic Miracles - there have been too many to count and YouTube even has videos of them.
- Sun miracles, e.g. at Fatima and Medjugorje
- Other empirical and completely mind-boggling evidence, such as the image of Our Lady in a rock at Las Lajas, Colombia. Scientists drilled that rock and found the image to be coloured in the rock itself to a depth of several feet!
I've tried to include modern examples such as Medjugorje, which are subject to even greater and knowledgable scrutiny than those of past eras. I could have included the Fatima miracle, during which 70,000 people simultaneously witnessed an awesome solar display, but the older something is, unfortunately the more easy it is to dismiss.
I fear the problem with atheism is that its participants are generally a dishonest bunch, willing to find anything to absolve them from the necessity of studying these evidences. If they studied the scientific reports on the visionaries at Medjugorje as much as they studied their "Popular Science" magazine, there would no longer be any sensible reason to be an atheist. In fact, you'd be a fool to still call yourself an atheist.
Click here for information on the scientific investigations carried out on the Medjugorje visionaries.
Einstein believed in God..for a clever scinetist that would be enough !
ReplyDeleteothers famous scientists believers:
Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Isaac Newton....etc....
Perhaps, but atheists will immediately say "Well, EVERYONE believed in God in those days. It was their culture and indoctrination". It doesn't convince them although we all enjoy it as believers.
DeleteSure, we know that science doesn't support the Medjugorje phenomenon as paranormal. It simply can't. It can only rule out hoax and currently-known scientific explanations. That's as far as it goes with science. The potential evidence, in my eyes, is this inability for science to explain the phenomenon naturally + the nature of the phenomena, i.e. it is a religious phenomenon, suggesting that a known spiritually being (The Blessed Virgin Mary) is communicating with the visionaries. Not that this is any useful evidence in forming a conclusion, but it is at least:
ReplyDelete1) A spoiler of atheism - i.e. here is something that suggests God "might" exist, which science so far can't deny. Strong atheism is destroyed. Healthy, respectful agnosticism is called for.
2) Something which cannot easily be designated to "God of the Gaps". I mean if spirits are speaking with people, science is unlikely to be able to provide a natural explanation in ther foreseeable future
This applies to all the evidence I suggested: Fatima sun miracle, Rock of Our Lady of Las Lajas. These are are combination of unexplained phenomenon + religious content. Sure, we ALL KNOW they don't PROVEwhat I am suggesting. BUT, science is not in the business of absolute proof. It is in the business of following evidence WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD. Atheists try to block off the paths that lead to paranormal explanations, and hide behind science's lack of ability to deal with it, to achieve and justify that.
Evolution is a nice one for atheists to grab onto. Hence, all atheists are evolutionists, pure and simple.
An you are just parroting that old atheist rhetoric. "Scientific fact", "Accepted by the Church". The Church stance is more like "Common descent MAY be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
Atheists believe in God, they fear God, they hope God doesn't exist OR they got tired of waiting for a personal experience OR they had negative experiences they blamed God for, OR they hate the idea of a God existing, which would take away all their illicit "fun". Otherwise, they wouldn't self-define and join atheists rallies as "atheists"; they would just get on with their lives wondering if God really existed, how amazing that would be and what that would mean.
I know I'm late to this conversation but I feel the need to comment. I was raised Catholic and then became Agnostic after 27 years of asking for God for a sign and receiving no reply. Yet after 15 years of being Agnostic, on the verge of going full-on Atheist and begging God for some type of acknowledgment that He exists, my request was finally answered. I would have NEVER, EVER believed it if it hadn't happened to me and I don't expect any non-believer reading this to accept that I had this spiritual awakening, so to speak, because I was of the same mindset: Until I am given proof, how can I believe? And I could tell you the story of what happened to me, the incident that blew my mind so wide open that my only logical answer was to conclude that a greater power does, in fact, exist, but as with most stories involving faith, I can't prove it. How convenient, right? Believe me, I get it. It's the catch 22 that always irritated me about people of blind faith. You want me to believe without evidence? Are you kidding? That's irresponsible. I mean, we make basic choices every day and most of us are required to consider all factors and cirsumstances involved to make an educated decision. Making a choice solely based on faith and completely void of logic never made sense to me and still doesn't. Though now, after having been touched by God in a way I can explain yet not prove, I have found myself in a difficult spot. I'm in a constant state of attempting to balance both faith and logic in a way in which they can coexist without cancelling each other out.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in reference to the conversation about supposed miracles, I automatically accept them as possibilities but also accept that they may very well be scams. Therefore, I make my best effort to find as much information and scientic proof as possible in order to prove or disprove their authenticity. In the case of The Lady of Las Lajas, I heard the legend and then searched for the results of the supposed geological study that determined there was no paint or pigment in the rock which bore the magical image. I have yet to come up with any data whatsover. So without the data from the study, I can't come to a definitive conclusion. The effect the image has had on a great many people can't be denied and that's a miracle of sorts in it's own right. But if it was man made or created by another force is something I can't explain, at least for now. Which brings me to the issue I have with the Atheist mindset. How do you know that life after death doesn't exist? Have you died? Unless you've died, experienced a completely empty void then magically came back to life, how can you, with 100% confidence, say that it doesn't exist? And to clarify, someone in the discussion above stated that "Atheists don't believe in God". But that's incorrect and is more akin to an Agnostic. Agnostics don't believe in God but are open to the possibility that He might. Atheists BELIEVE there is NO GOD. It's quite a different statement. But I guess my point is, why must we have an answer to everything? And why does one side have to be right and the other wrong? Isn't it possible that miracles exist but maybe we just don't have the tools or technology yet to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Science is constantly evolving. Maybe we don't have the answer today but in 100 years, we might. And as for people of faith, can't you accept that it's difficult for a logical, reasonable person to believe in something without clear, definitive evidence of its existence? Much of life is a mystery. And it will probably stay that way for a long time to come. But to dismiss faith all together or to say that God's existence isn't even possible is ignorant, as is dismissing science and saying that blind faith must be followed without considering "earthly factors" or even good ol' fashioned logic. I believe we must learn to consider both possibilities and contemplate them as reasonably and objectively as possible. Though having had a personal experience that proved to me, without a doubt, that God and the Devil exist, I hope that other non-believers are given an experience like mine. I was figuratively blind before it happened and it drastically changed my view on life. And I still don't understand why God chooses to show Himself to some and not others. But it truly leaves the ones He excludes at a huge disadvantage. If someone isn't given an opportunity to see, how can that person ever attain a clear view of things? I begged God for years for communication of some sort and when I had all but given up, it finally happened. But it took a LONG TIME to come to terms with it. It's not like I accepted it right off the bat and went on my merry way. I questioned it over and over again, running through the gambit of emotions, from confusion, anger and denial to happiness and finally, gratitude. But after looking at it from every angle possible, I could come to no other conclusion: God exists. But whether you're a non-believer or a man of faith, I think we would all benefit from being more open to possibilities outside the comfort zone of what WE THINK WE KNOW because when we refuse to consider anything and everything that doesn't fit into our current belief system, we may be denying ourselves the joy of a new discovery.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am late to this conversation, however, I was hoping you would share what experience happened when God revealed Himself to you. I find it very interesting to read the stories of people like Jennifer Fulwiler, Leah Libresco, Fr. Donald Calloway (now there's a story for you), etc. These individuals never believed in God and now vehemently and publicly share their conversion stories. I was blessed to be born into a loving Catholic family and never had the temptation to stray, but I know that many struggle with many questions today. I'm so happy that God became real for you and am interested in how that came about, if you feel compelled to share it publicly.
DeleteAt the end of the day, divine manifestations are consoling and edifying, but if they take the place of authentic interior renovation through a radical surrender to Jesus Christ through His sacraments, they're just parlor tricks.
ReplyDelete