From a Religious Viewpoint, is it My Fault That I'm an Atheist?

[Belindi]

I'm out of my depth here both philosphically and theologically. Nonetheless, I have two stories which may or may not be relevant.

One of the best sermons I've heard (there haven't been many; I'm not a church-goer) was in Compestelo. Those familiar with European history or Northern Spanish tourism may be familiar with the town: it is the end point of the Camino de Santiago, the most famous of all the Medieval European Pilgrimages. The pilgrimage honors St. James (Santiago is Spanish), the apostle who, legend has it, preached the gospel to Spain. As the Moslem armies pushed the Christians into the Northwest corner of Spain in the late 6th century, they bore with them a charm -- the arm of Mohammed -- which served as an amulet which never knew defeat. Fortunately, the Christian general unearthed the bones of the martyred St. James near Compestelo -- and their magic powers negated those of Mohammed's arm, and Christianity survived in Iberia.

Perhaps you have seen pictures of the Mass at the Cathedral in Compestelo. A great pendulun swings from the lofty ceiling, smoking with incense, which, at least in medieval times, must have served to hide the odor of the unwashed pilgrims.

When I attended the mass, some potentate gave the sermon. I'm not sure if he was a bishop or some other Catholic figure, but he wore a funny hat. He spoke in Spanish, which I will translate as best I can:

"I'd like to welcome the pilgrims," he said. "You are doubtless a diverse lot, and have many different reasons for making this pilgrimage. Some of you wanted the exercise (the "way" is more than 1000 km. long). Others may have wanted to lose weight. Perhaps some of you thought you would meet interesting people along the way. Some wanted to take in the beauty of Northern Spain. And some few, maybe, just maybe, went on this journey in the hope that you could find God. I'm here to tell you that you cannot find God. He must find you."

It was a great sermon, and I have no idea if the theology is approved by the Catholic church. It seems almost Calvinistic. My imperfect memory recalls that Calvinists believe that God calls only the Elect who, with his perfect foresight, he recognizes.

Here's my question: Does God look to "find" everyone, and can only succeed with those who are not hiding from Him?

Obviously, ignorance is a fault. We believe what we believe (as Goodegg said), but as we educate ourselves our beliefs change. We learn our multiplication tables, for one. Our beliefs can be correct or incorrect. So from a theological perspective, is belief in God a virtue because, like a mathematical proof, we can reason our way to it? Or is it a virtue because God calls to us, and we hear him if we open our ears? Or both? Or neither?

Yes, I'd say so. The cardinal was right. The subjective quest is itself the finding. The cardinal must be a Xian existentialist.

[Ecurb]

Well as you know, everyone has an opinion (that is, a belief) but no one knows (despite declarations of knowledge by some).

To my mind, the absence of proof of gods is not a barrier to belief (faith). In fact as you alluded to, belief in the absence of proof is true belief (as opposed to acknowledgment in the case of evidence and proof).

As I understand it (which is not very well) there is a distinction between "belief" and "faith" (from the standard Christian perspective). "Belief" refers to what we think (believe) is true.

Faith refers to having the courage of our convictions. Faith, hope and love (charity) are the three "theological virtues" of Medieval Catholicism. Of course it is not really a virtue to believe what we believe (although the diligence and rigor through which we come to our beliefs may be virtuous). But once we believe something -- especially without proof -- it is virtuous to stick by our beliefs, even when it is difficult or dangerous to do so. This fortitude is what "faith" refers to in Christianity. (Although, of course, according to Paul, it is a lesser virtue than love.)

[Ecurb]

By the way, I just reread my Camino post, and for the life of me I can't remember what the second story I promised was. I must have forgotten it while writing the sermon story.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well as you know, everyone has an opinion (that is, a belief) but no one knows (despite declarations of knowledge by some).

To my mind, the absence of proof of gods is not a barrier to belief (faith). In fact as you alluded to, belief in the absence of proof is true belief (as opposed to acknowledgment in the case of evidence and proof).

As I understand it (which is not very well) there is a distinction between "belief" and "faith" (from the standard Christian perspective). "Belief" refers to what we think (believe) is true.

Faith refers to having the courage of our convictions. Faith, hope and love (charity) are the three "theological virtues" of Medieval Catholicism. Of course it is not really a virtue to believe what we believe (although the diligence and rigor through which we come to our beliefs may be virtuous). But once we believe something -- especially without proof -- it is virtuous to stick by our beliefs, even when it is difficult or dangerous to do so. This fortitude is what "faith" refers to in Christianity. (Although, of course, according to Paul, it is a lesser virtue than love.)

I was raised (by Roman Catholic cultists) to believe that faith is what enables one to believe something in the absence of evidence or proof. HTH.

[Leontiskos]

Well as you know, everyone has an opinion (that is, a belief) but no one knows (despite declarations of knowledge by some).

To my mind, the absence of proof of gods is not a barrier to belief (faith). In fact as you alluded to, belief in the absence of proof is true belief (as opposed to acknowledgment in the case of evidence and proof).

As I understand it (which is not very well) there is a distinction between "belief" and "faith" (from the standard Christian perspective). "Belief" refers to what we think (believe) is true.

Faith refers to having the courage of our convictions. Faith, hope and love (charity) are the three "theological virtues" of Medieval Catholicism. Of course it is not really a virtue to believe what we believe (although the diligence and rigor through which we come to our beliefs may be virtuous). But once we believe something -- especially without proof -- it is virtuous to stick by our beliefs, even when it is difficult or dangerous to do so. This fortitude is what "faith" refers to in Christianity. (Although, of course, according to Paul, it is a lesser virtue than love.)

There are all sorts of views on this, even among Christians and Catholics. The colloquial view, as you say, is that belief refers to affirmation of a proposition. The colloquial view of faith is harder to pin down, but it is something like "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

For someone like Aquinas there are several intellectual acts, including consideration, inquiry, deliberation, demonstrative knowing, understanding, doubting, suspecting, opining, and believing (link). For Aquinas and many theologians the motive of belief--natural and supernatural--is trust in another's word. So if Aquinas looked today at the various affirmations of scientific propositions, he would note that something like 99% of them are acts of belief or faith since their rationale is an argument from authority. For most people with most scientific assertions (including scientists), they have not worked through the experiments and proofs themselves, and therefore they do not have demonstrative knowledge of the proposition in question. In our modern era with its robust specialization of knowledge, almost everything individuals know is known by faith in Aquinas' sense. Our scientific enterprise is an enormous network of trust and authority, which is of course ironic given how we profess to eschew arguments from authority.

Today under Protestant influence faith has come to take on an 'existential' color. That is, many theologians see faith as an act of trust in the person of God. For Aquinas this would be hope, not faith. It would be hope in God's goodness and his promises. Aquinas' understanding of faith would terminate in the concrete knowledge that trust in God's word makes possible.

[Good_Egg]

That is, many theologians see faith as an act of trust in the person of God. For Aquinas this would be hope, not faith. It would be hope in God's goodness and his promises.

In common usage, seems like there is an overlap of meaning. I could impart the meaning "I have confidence that you will do the right thing" by saying "I believe in you". Or "I have faith in you". We say "belief" or "faith" when we mean "trust". So this is an area ripe for philosophical unpacking, for linguistic rigour.

Faithfulness, or keeping faith with someone, is a virtue. It's about integrity, about doing behind their back the same thing you'd do if they were watching. Trustworthiness, if you will.

Trusting someone is not inherently an act of virtue. People vary in their trustworthiness - to place one's trust in someone who has repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy runs contrary to the virtue of prudence.

But if you would say in someone's presence that you trust them, but in your absence you do not, then you are not keeping faith with them. If you cannot say to God that you don't trust Him, then any everyday lack of trust is a lack of faithfulness.

Acting as if God's promise has been made to you personally when it was in fact made to others is an act of Hope.

Some people's faith seems to boil down to trusting God to exist. Which seems to make no sense; existence cannot be willed.

Some Christians talk of "knowing by faith". You're right that much of what we say we know we have not apprehended from first-hand experience, but only by trust in what others tell us...

[Leontiskos]

Some people's faith seems to boil down to trusting God to exist. Which seems to make no sense; existence cannot be willed.

It is incoherent to trust someone to exist, but not because beliefs are unrelated to volition. We covered that mistake earlier in the thread. The reason it is incoherent is because trust/faith implies a trusted authority whose word you are adhering to, and an authority whose existence is in question cannot supply the necessary testimony for any act of trust or faith made on their behalf. I can trust Fred when he tells me that he has shoveled my mother's driveway because I already know that Fred exists. But I cannot trust Fred to tell me he exists if his existence is the point at issue, for he whose existence is in question cannot testify to his own existence. He can demonstrate his existence in a way other than testimony, but this is different than trust or faith. Put differently, if we are questioning whether someone exists then we can't take them to be trustworthy.

So when someone says that they have faith that God exists, if they are to be coherent they must be trusting in the testimony of someone other than God, such as the Church or their parents.

At least this is true in the West. Some approaches to faith in the East have a different shape.

[Good_Egg]

Our scientific enterprise is an enormous network of trust and authority, which is of course ironic given how we profess to eschew arguments from authority.

It is indeed an enormous network of trust. But the only authority it acknowledges is the authority of experience. All those scientists past, the nodes of the network, are trusted only to have made observations.and calculations that anyone else could subsequently replicate.

There is no argument from authority, no "Newton said this and Newton was a great man so it must be so".

Newton famously said "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants".

But it's more like standing on the shoulders of a pyramid of honest men. The ideal of science is that nobody is automatically right because they're a giant.

[Good_Egg]

Our scientific enterprise is an enormous network of trust and authority, which is of course ironic given how we profess to eschew arguments from authority.

It is indeed an enormous network of trust. But the only authority it acknowledges is the authority of experience. All those scientists past, the nodes of the network, are trusted only to have made observations.and calculations that anyone else could subsequently replicate.

There is no argument from authority, no "Newton said this and Newton was a great man so it must be so".

Newton famously said "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants".

But it's more like standing on the shoulders of a pyramid of honest men. The ideal of science is that nobody is automatically right because they're a giant.

[Good_Egg]

Our scientific enterprise is an enormous network of trust and authority, which is of course ironic given how we profess to eschew arguments from authority.

It is indeed an enormous network of trust. But the only authority it acknowledges is the authority of experience. All those scientists past, the nodes of the network, are trusted only to have made observations.and calculations that anyone else could subsequently replicate.

There is no argument from authority, no "Newton said this and Newton was a great man so it must be so".

Newton famously said "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants".

But it's more like standing on the shoulders of a pyramid of honest men. The ideal of science is that nobody is automatically right because they're a giant.

[Ecurb]

Our scientific enterprise is an enormous network of trust and authority, which is of course ironic given how we profess to eschew arguments from authority.

It is indeed an enormous network of trust. But the only authority it acknowledges is the authority of experience. All those scientists past, the nodes of the network, are trusted only to have made observations.and calculations that anyone else could subsequently replicate.

There is no argument from authority, no "Newton said this and Newton was a great man so it must be so".

Newton famously said "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants".

But it's more like standing on the shoulders of a pyramid of honest men. The ideal of science is that nobody is automatically right because they're a giant.

All experiences are unique. None can be "replicated".

Of course similar experiments can be repeated, with similar results. But not all scientific observation is experimental. In addition, scence is not the only path to knowledge. What about history? Can it be replicated, or should (sorry, Scott) we accept that Babe Ruth hit 714 regular season home runs on the basis of our faith in authority?

Nobody is "automatically right" whatever their stature. Nonetheless, I'd accept authoritative views rather than random ones. I believe the world is round despite Kyrie Irving's opinion to the contrary. Who am I going to believe? A baskeball star, or an astronomer? Or maybe I should believe generally accepted "facts" (Uh oh! Argumentum ad populum!).

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

GK Chesterton

Infatuation with logical fallacies is, well, illogical.

[Sculptor1]

Is atheism closest to a choice, a rebellion or something more like color-blindness.

I've always been an atheist so sometimes it's hard for me to understand to understand the impact my atheism has on others.

I feel like I take religion and religious people seriously, but sometimes that seems like it might be worse - might appear cynical or insulting in some way.

Thanks.

The omnipotent, omniscient God has made you in the certain knowledge that you will die a sinner and be damned in hell for eternity.

Tuff luck!

[Sculptor1]

Is it your "fault"? If this means "are you responsible", yes. But responsibility has mitigating factors: I may be objectively wrong about something but not culpable because I am innocently ignorant of my error. Or, I could be wrong about something and culpable because I willfully choose to be wrong, or I willfully choose to be ignorant of the truth.

But surely it is the devout that are willfully ignorant of the truth?
Are you trying to say that he is not sincere?

[Leontiskos]

"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.

GK Chesterton

A great quote! Chesterton is very much underrated.