Letter to an Atheist

[sehoy]

[Adam]

[Kolbitar]

::Agnostic Christian? Is that even possible? It seems like an oxymoron to me.

I think that one may be intellectually unconvinced about the rational proofs for God's existence, yet still willfully believe (it's a fine distinction) -- and, though I could be wrong, I think that may be what Adam's getting at. As Catholics, you and I, Chris, we must accept that there are rational proofs for God's existence as a matter of dogma. That doesn't mean we have to see them or understand them ourselves, it only means we have to accept that, in principle, they are understandable. However, I think you'd agree that someone who is not Catholic and does not accept our dogmas is not therefore bound by those dogmas which we trust to lead us where we cannot always see. So I suspect that if you ask Adam if he *believes* in the existence of God then you may get the answer you want (though please, Adam, correct me if I'm wrong), but if you press him and ask if he believes that there are, in principle, rational proofs for God's existence that he may plead the agnostic once again -- where a Catholic is bound to answer yes.

Actually, Chris, I'll save you the typing :-)

...and ask: Adam, do you believe in the existence of God?

Thanks,

Jesse

[Adam]

[John Anthony]

Jesse and Adam, I read each of your latest posts in this thread with great interest.

Adam, you are agnostic about the existence of God. Are you similarly agnostic about God’s nature? What do you believe or surmise or hope about him beyond his existence? Some Christians (including some early Church Fathers, I think} have maintained that God is beyond the limits of what humans can understand, and that one should seek God not by means of intellectual understanding, but through a direct experience of his love or his energies. I don’t think you agree with this. Or do you?

[jo]

[Adam]

[Adam]

[Kolbitar]

::Some Christians (including some early Church Fathers, I think} have maintained that God is beyond the limits of what humans can understand, and that one should seek God not by means of intellectual understanding, but through a direct experience of his love or his energies.

Hello John. Here is where the Catholic, believing by faith where he perhaps cannot see, differs from both the Cartesian Protestant (whatever is clear to me is true, and nothing else) and the (agnostic or atheist) Christian existentialist who sees no real need for abstractions. By placing rational proofs for the existence of God as a matter of faith for those who cannot see, Catholicism sets the willful direction for reason; it primarily focuses reason upon nature through the windows of our senses. This is why it consistently walks the knife edge between idealism and empiricism, especially as they reflect religiously -- gnosticism, for example. You see, the Catholic would say that this: "and that one should seek God not by means of intellectual understanding, but through a direct experience of his love or his energies"; that this presents a false dichotomy. Intellectual understanding of God's nature (not as it is in itself, but as it exists in relation to us) is, according to Catholics, ordinarily necessary for seeking him through a direct experience of His love. Intellects are part of our nature, therefore knowledge is a part of faith -- of faithfullness. If your faithfullness evidences your faith, then I think it reveals a basic (though perhaps confused) intellectual certainty as well... :-)

I realize your question wasn't directed at me, but I think it provides a good opportunity for me to clarify -- or confuse, as the case may be.

Sincerely,

Jesse

[John Anthony]

[nomad]

[Jinksy]

[Adam]

[nomad]

Adam, your honesty and openness about your struggle with yourself is very refreshing. I can't pretend to have anything to say or add at this point, but the original post is starting to make some sense. And I am learning much from your explanations, for which I thank you. I'm just going to hang out and read what you have to say for a while.

[nomad]

Adam, I wrote something out in reaction to a sermon in a church I was visiting that started a train of thought. The subject was the sense of emptiness and the desire for wholeness, which is why I'm using that terminology. But I think, if I have understood you, that my musings are related to what you were saying. So anyway, here's the product of my brain's rambling.

Emptiness. Depth. The void. The Why?

Our desire for wholeness creates the feeling of emptiness. Is there wholeness to be found? Will there be an end to the emptiness? Not if it is up to mankind to create it. Only if there is a God. So this is the question of a God - is there wholeness? I cannot ‘know’ the answer in the same sense that I know about gravity. Reason will not show me. That is why we speak of Faith. But Faith doesn’t mean throwing Reason aside. Reason cannot take me the whole way, but it is my reasoning - my reasoning about my experience, my world - that has brought me to the point of wondering about a God in the first place. If I did not have the ability to reason, it would never occur to me to imagine a God. Is, then, Faith a product of Reason? The natural completion of Reason? The desire of Reason?

(Then I added this a bit later)

So this is the question of a God - is there wholeness? I cannot ‘know’ the answer in the same sense that I know about gravity.

Faith, then, may be only the persistence of hope. To hope that there is wholeness, even (especially) when the emptiness seems endless. To hope there is a God, even though you can’t believe in Him the same way you believe in gravity. To hope that your prayers are heard, even when all you hear is silence. To accept the silence because it speaks more deeply to the soul than words. And because in the empty silence you are asked, “Will you hope?”

peace,
nomad