A Catholic or a Madman
September 27, 2007 · By Marsilio Facino
If God isn’t Great, then he certainly subcontracted the job to someone pretty qualified:
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: “Excuse me?”
FATHER RUTLER: “That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference.”
H/T The Curt Jester and Kathy Shaidle aka Five Feet of Fury
Update September 28th:
I hate to interrupt one of our anonymous commenters as they receive their Five Feet of Fury (available in your choice of flavors just in time for Christmas), but since they mentioned Osama Bin Laden I thought it only fair to add a few pertinent details regarding Fr Rutler’s moral equivalence to Osama Bin Laden:
Evidently, Mr. Hitchens never met Father Rutler before their May 1 encounter, and did not know who he was. It happens that Father Rutler is a hero of 9-11. He holds a special place in the hearts of New York City’s police and firemen, for he was with them that day at Ground Zero. Before Father Mychal Judge was struck dead by a body falling from the burning towers, Father Rutler stood side-by-side with Father Judge, hearing confessions and giving the last rites to firemen en route to their deaths.
You truly have to be insane to believe in these superstitions, don’t you? Father Rutler has got no more evidence for HIS superstition than Osama bin Laden has for HIS, yet they are both absolutely convinced that they speak for an imaginary invisible man in the sky.
True, although any smack-down of Hitchens is worthy of applause…
Isn’t it weird that the only people who think of God as “an invisible man in the sky” are atheists?
Anon, why not be brave and tell us your real name? I’m sure God is too busy to read this. And I’d love to hear about your academic and career accomplishments, especially your qualifications for diagnosing insanity.
That’s not fair though. I’m sure your resume is pretty flaccid. You’re, what, 18? 19? I hope. Cuz if you aren’t, that’s how you sound. Might want to look into that…
Well done, Kathy. What a dazzling rebuttal.
Not that it matters, but I’m 40, and I have 2 university degrees. I make my mind up on issues according to the evidence that is available to me, and by that standard, religion (ALL religions) have nothing more behind them than hopeful wishes, so that is what religion(s) use to sell themselves. When I ask for evidence for any of the outlandish things that religions claim, the only sort of “proof” that they offer is “My magic book is true because my magic book says my magic book is true”. You should be able to see the logical fallacy behind that statement, but adherents of all religions use exactly that to “prove” that all religions but their own are false. I don’t believe in YOUR superstition for exactly the same reasons that you don’t believe in any OTHER superstitions; there’s no evidence for them. Of course, if your imaginary “god” is as powerful as you like to claim, he/she/it/they should be able to convince me otherwise, right? ;-)
I wish I was as smart as Anon. But for the life of me, I just can’t figure out how to go about collecting empirical evidence that would prove that god does in fact exist.
“Of course, if your imaginary “god†is as powerful as you like to claim, he/she/it/they should be able to convince me otherwise, right? ;-)”
Or maybe you’ll just go to hell when you die. ha ha ha
Oh wait, I can’t find any physical evidence that proves that hell exists. Never mind.
“I just can’t figure out how to go about collecting empirical evidence that would prove that god does in fact exist.”
Careful, Aaron. Doesn’t this blog have a policy of editing posts from people who don’t reverently capitalize the word “God”?
Less facetiously, you’re quite right. There is no such empirical evidence, although the faithful have tried to claim there is. “Knowledge” of God requires the exercise of faith as opposed to reliance on evidence. You’ve very adroitly pointed out the difference between, say, belief in evolution and belief in creationism.
“There is no such empirical evidence, although the faithful have tried to claim there is.”
People of faith have made no such claim. To claim that the existence of God can be proven is the very antithesis of faith. If you can be certain that god exists, then what do you need faith for?
In that case, Aaron, there’s no more reason for me to believe in your imaginary god than there is for me to believe in the Muslims’ imaginary god, or the Jews’ imaginary god, or the Hindus’ imaginary god(s), etc., etc. Why is it that you approach “belief” in this issue any differently than you approach “belief” in any OTHER issue? When someone is trying to convince me of something, I expect to see a hypothesis backed up by evidence, whether that someone is a politician, or a salesman, or a priest, or anyone else. Don’t imagine that I’m picking on your particular superstition, because I’m not; it’s just that the Christian superstition has no more evidence in support of it than any OTHER superstition does. When I read through the Christian magic book, it has example after example of self-contradiction, yet otherwise intelligent people will still try to claim that every word of it is true, and “you’d better believe, or else, heathen”. Always worth a laugh, but it doesn’t explain the contradictions, does it?
“Why is it that you approach “belief†in this issue any differently than you approach “belief†in any OTHER issue? When someone is trying to convince me of something, I expect to see a hypothesis backed up by evidence, whether that someone is a politician, or a salesman, or a priest, or anyone else.”
What evidence could I present you that might help you to change your mind?
Have you ever learned anything in your life other than through a hypothesis backed up by evidence?
“People of faith have made no such claim.”
Really? What’s a “miracle”, Aaron?
“In that case, Aaron, there’s no more reason for me to believe in your imaginary god than there is for me to believe in the Muslims’ imaginary god, or the Jews’ imaginary god, or the Hindus’ imaginary god(s), etc., etc.”
If that were true, then we’d expect every single superstition and religion in the world to have a roughly equal appeal. But that’s not what we see, is it? A few religions clearly speak to us in more meaningful ways than others. Why do you think that is?
“Really? What’s a “miracleâ€, Aaron?”
I don’t know. You’re talking to the wrong kind of Protestant here. What I do know is that it’s not evidence of God’s existence. Suggestive and hard to ignore, to be certain, but not evidence in the way that Anon would think of it.
You indicated that “people of faith” have not claimed that there is empirical evidence of the existence of God. You are mistaken: many “people of faith” have claimed the miracles represent precisely that kind of empirical evidence.
They must not have much faith then.
“Have you ever learned anything in your life other than through a hypothesis backed up by evidence?”
Off hand, I can’t think of one; those that I have had any doubts about, I was able to research and experiment on.
“If that were true, then we’d expect every single superstition and religion in the world to have a roughly equal appeal. But that’s not what we see, is it? A few religions clearly speak to us in more meaningful ways than others. Why do you think that is?”
Accidents of history; since the Romans had so much sway over most of the “civilized” world, that translated into a greater acceptance of the ideas that they ended up adopting and promoting (one of which ended up being your particular superstition). Christianity itself ended up subsuming and including so many aspects of other superstitions (”virgin births”, blood sacrifices, resurrection, yadda, yadda, yadda) that it’s ludicrous to claim that it is in any way “special”. That’s not to say that it’s a “bad” way to live (as a conservative libertarian, I treat others the way I would like to be treated, simply because it’s easier to get along and I hope that that behaviour is returned). However, that’s a LONG way from believing in an imaginary invisible man in the sky. If Constantine had chosen ANOTHER superstition to believe in, or if the Council of Nicea had voted any differently, you would just as easily be believing in a different superstition (and doubtless, be claiming that it’s the “infallible word of god”).
“They must not have much faith then.”
Umm…it’s actually quite a common premise among Catholic theologians, and articulated by not a few Popes. If I were you, Aaron, I wouldn’t venture too far into theological discussions in the future.
“Off hand, I can’t think of one; those that I have had any doubts about, I was able to research and experiment on.”
Then I challenge you here - conduct this empirical experiment: make the decision in your mind that Jesus is who he says he is in the Bible, and that the Bible is true. I believe you have the rational capacity to do this. Follow Jesus’ teachings and trust in the truth of his claims for one month, forsaking your atheist stance. Attend a church, seek out fellowship with other believers, and forsake what the Bible calls “sin”.
My hypothesis is that you will, empirically, experience confirmation of the faith you practice for that month. I believe you will meet Jesus in a spiritual experience that will change your life. Do you have the empirical, analytical mind to conduct this experiment, or are you just all talk about “giving all religions a chance”?
I’ve been challenged to make that experiment by Scientologists, Daoists, a Jehovah’s Witness, and a Buddhist friend.
The “Spiritual Exercises” compiled by St. Ignatious of Loyola set out a systematic program for achieving a “mystical” revelation. It is remarkable in that it anticipates many of the approaches formalized by psychologists centuries later and used for behaviour modification, “brainwashing”, and programming/deprogramming cultists.
Shane, believe it or not, I did exactly that once upon a time. Result? Bupkus. In fact, you can do EXACTLY the same thing with the carton of milk in your refrigerator, and you will get exactly the same result. This is because of something called “projection”, and it works for your superstition the same way it works for any OTHER superstition. If a jungle tribe that believes in voodoo lives near an erupting volcano, and their witch doctor/priest tells them “We have to sacrifice a virgin to appease the volcano god”, and they do exactly that, there are only two possibilities that will follow. One, they claim that the “volcano god” HAS been appeased by the sacrifice of said unfortunate virgin, and the volcano stops erupting, for at least a while. Or, two, the volcano continues to erupt, and the fall-back position for the witch doctor/priest (or for any OTHER religion) is “The volcano god is still angry, but we must continue to believe. He demands MORE sacrifice.” In either case, though, did the sacrifice actually DO ANYTHING? Of course not, yet that is exactly the thought process that you are following when you go through YOUR religous rituals.
Like I said Anon, a 40 year old man with two university degrees who still reflexively employs petulant, adolescent expressions like “invisible man in the sky” might want to reconsider his habit of re-reading the collected works of Kurt Vonnegat once a year and move on to something more grown up. If only to learn how to mount more impressive arguments. Do you really think an accomplished man like the priest in this article (one much more accomplished than you I’d wager) is going to hear you snort about “an invisible man in the sky” is going to slap his forward and exclaim: “How could I have been so stupid all these years?”
And I’m still waiting to read your basis for calling him insane.
Dalton, I realize that verbal fireworks are important to folks like you. After all, your concerns are entirely superficial, and you are easily impressed by the facile. Sorry to disappoint, but then again, the truth requires no adornment, and only the shallow demand it.
Verbal fireworks? Not at all. Substance is nice, occasionally, and there have been a couple of glimmers of it in this thread. Not from you, of course: you’re maintaining the thread’s lofty insult quota, but I’m afraid you haven’t added anything beyond that.
Anon, I was quite serious about the Jesuit Spiritual Exercises. They’re still an integral part of the Novitiate training for Jesuits, and anyone curious about how someone can be spiritually re-programmed in thirty days: it’s one of the most acute exercises in practical psychology ever devised, and applicable to pretty much any body of belief.
Kathy, I honestly don’t CARE about what “Father Rutler” thinks, I’m only saying that if he wants ME to believe in his imaginary invisible man in the sky, he’s going to have to come up with a better shtick than “Trust me”. I don’t believe any OTHER religion on that basis, so why should I believe YOURS? (And, no, I haven’t read Vonnegut since high school.) However, IF you were to somehow convince me that your imaginary “god” was real, you would still have to convince me that your particular religion, out of all of the thousands of other choices available, has anything at all to do with that “god”. As I’ve said above, there are simply too many examples of the Christian magic book contradicting itself to be believable.
“Umm…it’s actually quite a common premise among Catholic theologians, and articulated by not a few Popes.”
You obviously need to get your definitions right.
Which definitions would you like me to clarify?
I’m not smart enough to keep up with the clever Atheists on this thread. Instead, I’ll turn to my shiny new copy of Volume 2 of the Hackett Aquinas — The Treatise on the Divine Nature — Summa Theologiae I Questions 1-13, with accompanying commentary by Brian Shanley, OP
Question 12, with 13 subparts is How Is God Known By Us?
http://www.hackettpublishing.c.....sFG24pM%3D
Gosh, a link to a review of Aquinas. Well, that certainly proves…ummm…that Marsilio knows how to link to review pages. Thanks.
Aaron, Which definitions would you like me to clarify?
“Aaron, Which definitions would you like me to clarify?”
I think he’d like you to review certain key works of religious epistemology such as John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, explicate the moderate realist philosopical psychology that Aquinas develops from Aristotle’s De Anima and then explains how Newman developed his epistemology by brilliantly extending an undeveloped area of Aristotle’s original lines of thought.
After you’re finished with that, perhaps you could explain why you side with the Scottish Empiricist school and how your understanding of Kant’s Categories puts you at odds not only with Aristotle’s Categories but with certain implicit assumptions of certain Scottish/English empiricists.
As an extra homework assignment, you might choose to review Newman’s other seminal work An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine but I’d rather see you discuss CS Lewis’s apologetic treatise Miracles and the further development of those lines of thought in Victor Reppert’s “CS Lewis’s Dangerous Idea - In Defense of the Argument from Reason.”
Either way, we’re most curious about the use of the terms “empirical evidence” and “miracles” and what your original sources are for your assertions.
Actualy, Marsilio, I don’t think he’d like any of those things (none of which reflect my statement, except, I suppose, for a light link with David Hume, who, as you correctly surmise, I admire). I think he fired a weak parting shot and then fled.
Following a (forgive me) leaden three paragraph attempt to impress the peanut gallery, you (using the royal “we”, for some reason) ask for clarification of two terms: empirical evidence and miracle.
As for the first, you had best ask Aaron, who introduced it into this debate.
As to the second, I mean, in this context, a suspension of the natural operation of the universe through the agency or will of God.
Whoops, sorry, Marsilio. I was still chuckling about your attempt to wallop me with “scholarship”, and missed your request for my sources. The best known is, of course, Aquinas, and his view of miracles as a proof of the existence of God is probably best articulated in Book 1 of “Summa Contra Gentiles”. I won’t insult a theologian of your erudition by actually quoting a passage I’m sure you know intimately.
“As to the second, I mean, in this context, a suspension of the natural operation of the universe through the agency or will of God.”
Since Aquinas had a different definition of Miracle (his Summa Contra Gentiles) from David Hume, then, you had best clarify whose causation model you prefer — since Hume had a very different causal model than do Aristotelians.
This ground has already been well trod by others, so I’m unclear as to why you’re invoking Hume’s name to state, in a roundabout way, that you are a philosophic materialist who denies the existence of the supernatural a priori.
Hey, we both posted at the same time. It’s a miracle!
You asked me to define “miracle”. I did.
You asked me to provide a source for my assertion. I did.
Was there anything else you wanted me to define?
“a suspension of the natural operation of the universe”
Are you saying, then, that a miracle is contrary to the laws of nature?
“Hey, we both posted at the same time. It’s a miracle!”
A coincidence is not a miracle, as even the most elementary analysis would show.
“Was there anything else you wanted me to define?”
Yes. Most readers reading would not have the time or inclination to journey far into the Philosophy of Religion (which is what your discussion is) and start reading Aristotle, Aquinas and Hume to answer a question that is of far less importance than many others of a more pressing nature on a political blog.
That said, though, the most accessible treatment for anyone interested, who is a theist, is CS Lewis’s book Miracles and a book by Victor Reppert extending his Argument from Reason.
So, since Lewis studied Hume while at Oxford and specifically quotes his Treatise of HUman Nature in Chapter 13 “On Probability” of Miracles, I would like to know if you have read the book or attempted to engage any of his arguments.
I would also like to know if you believe that a Miracle is contrary to the laws of nature, being scrupulously careful with your use of the word “contrary” from medieval logic.
“A coincidence is not a miracle, as even the most elementary analysis would show.”
Now, Marsilio…don’t confirm the popular image of pedants as being absolutely humourless. If you like, I shall adorn any remarks whose intent is primarily humorous with a cue to assist you. ( humour ). Thus.
“Are you saying, then, that a miracle is contrary to the laws of nature?”
Well, there are range of definitions, stretching from the common usage (e.g., a surprising event, like the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup ( humour )) to the enormous set of theological definitions. You asked me to define the sense in which I was using the word, and I did. You seek further clarification, and I will pleased to elaborate, if you’ll clarify what you mean by “laws of nature”.
“Jesuit Spiritual Exercises”
I have the entire text right in front of me and find it hard to believe that anyone who is not a Christian would want to take them.
Sorry, we’re overlapping each other. I have read Lewis (and Miracles, specifically), I have not read Reppert, I have read Hume.
With your permission, I’d like to just return your attention to the actual statement I made. I corrected Aaron’s erroneous assertion that no “persons of faith” had claimed empirical evidence of God’s existence.
Is that your view?
“if you’ll clarify what you mean by “laws of natureâ€.”
I suggest beginning with the term Nature, first. I have to disappear for a few hours to torture some heretics, rob some widows of some alms and oppress non-theists at the shopping mall.
In the meantime, I suggest beginning with either the Greek “phusis” and perhaps the Latin “Natura”. You can find an excellent etymology in CS Lewis’s Studies in Words Chapter 2 - Nature.
Have fun.
“I have the entire text right in front of me and find it hard to believe that anyone who is not a Christian would want to take them.”
You are quite correct. In fact, I don’t imagine that many who is not a Jesuit postulant would want to take them. It’s not the content I’m referring to, though, but the process, as an exercise in applied psychology.
Nice try, Marsilio. You want to discuss, we’ll discuss. You want to disappear into a cloud of mock-scholarly ink…see you later. Don’t challenge someone to define their terms (which I did), then refuse to define your own.
“I corrected Aaron’s erroneous assertion that no “persons of faith†had claimed empirical evidence of God’s existence”
“Persons of faith” throughout history have always had, in their membership, people who held incorrect or erroneous notions. As well, the Christian world is no longer strictly Catholic and, hence, one has to be quite familiar with the historical development of Christian Doctrine to understand the movement in philosophical understanding of the questions.
You didn’t, however, attempt to answer the equivocation and many people would assume that “empirical” meant discerning God with the five senses — a notion that Aquinas would find, for example, impossible.
“Don’t challenge someone to define their terms (which I did), then refuse to define your own.”
Plato’s Meno is always my model for socratic discussion. Those who get angry in response say more than they know.
““Persons of faith†throughout history have always had, in their membership, people who held incorrect or erroneous notions.”
Quite. I was, however, rebutting Aaron’s erroneous assertion by illustrating that, contrary to his belief, “persons of faith” have in fact claimed empirical evidence of God’s existence.
I look forward to any argument or evidence you or he advance to dispute that.
“Those who get angry in response say more than they know.”
My dear fellow, surely you’re not talking about me? Angry? Good heavens. This is fun.
““Knowledge†of God requires the exercise of faith as opposed to reliance on evidence.”
Far from it. What you’ve asserted is that all monotheists are Fideists. Your difficulty comes from the loose phrase “exercise of faith” and the loose use of the word “evidence”.
Further, you didn’t adequately articulate what God’s nature is, first, so you failed to distinguish analogical from univocal knowledge of God’s attributes versus God’s essence.
Have you read Jacques Maritain’s The Degrees of Knowledge?
“Your difficulty comes from the loose phrase “exercise of faith†and the loose use of the word “evidenceâ€.
Gosh. Well, let’s ask Aaron what he meant when he first used the term.
Hey, Aaron…what did you mean when you said “empirical evidence”? I thought I understood, but Marsilio doesn’t. Could you clarify?
“Have you read Jacques Maritain’s The Degrees of Knowledge?”
Nope. I just finished the collected short stories of Henry Kuttner, though. Pretty darn good.
Dalton, I hope you’ll consider authoring a blog.
Tnank you, Scott. (I choose to take that as a compliment, rather than a wish on your part to see me embarassing myself daily, rather than only intermittently at the Politic.
(Humour, Marsilio.)