Good-Faith Atheism

MoeLarryandJesus rails against God in 3...2...1

Posted by Carnac | January 25, 2008 2:55 PM

Ross: Provocative, helpful post. In a political season where religion is a significant part of the discussion, it's refreshing to hear something sympathetic (somewhat sympathetic) to an atheist's point of view. Thanks.

Posted by fougasseu | January 25, 2008 3:05 PM

Ross: Provocative, helpful post. In a political season where religion is a significant part of the discussion, it's refreshing to hear something sympathetic (somewhat sympathetic) to an atheist's point of view. Thanks.

Posted by fougasseu | January 25, 2008 3:06 PM

It would be much more uncharitable if you were to include him in that rather dubious category.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 3:08 PM

That last link seems to go to the wrong article.

I appreciate the distinction being made here, and I don't care much for Hitchens' style of evangelical atheism, but I find the attitude that "it's ok to doubt God as long as you suffer for it" to be rather insulting.

I have no beef with people of faith, but I'm really not all that fussed about my own lack thereof, nor do I feel any particular anguish or despair about my "meaningless" existence. Life, in all of its fascinating variations, provides meaning enough.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 25, 2008 3:09 PM

This “passive atheism” explains why the term Anomie has become steadily more pervasive in our discourse.

To the religious it means “lack of love” – (more properly “lack of Agape”)

Posted by Fitz | January 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Carnac stupidly predicts: "MoeLarryandJesus rails against God in 3...2...1"

I leave railing against imaginary creatures to Satan-hating Christians. I can't stand Smurfs, though - they get blue on everything.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 3:18 PM

Fitz claims: "This “passive atheism” explains why the term Anomie has become steadily more pervasive in our discourse."

Actually the use of that word probably peaked in the 50s and I'm quite sure months go by without it appearing in my widespread readings. But since Fitz lives in a pre-Vatican II dreamworld, perhaps it shows up for him hourly.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 3:21 PM

LFP writes: "I have no beef with people of faith, but I'm really not all that fussed about my own lack thereof, nor do I feel any particular anguish or despair about my "meaningless" existence. Life, in all of its fascinating variations, provides meaning enough."

You mean you don't feel a need to posit the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make yourself feel important?

What are you, some sort of rational, decent human being?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 3:23 PM

Father Cantalamessa's piece is trite, condescending nonsense. You find it sympathetic, you'll find anything sympathetic. In the context of post-Vatican II ecclesiology/soteriology, Cantalamessa's claims also applies to Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, you name it. It's amazing that people who have zero evidence for their claims go around pontificating on the psychological states of others. Bizarre.

Posted by Karl von Rahner | January 25, 2008 3:29 PM

What Cantalessa, Neuhaus and many religious fail to appreciate is that most athiests, myself included, are "Good Faith Athiests." I've always assumed that in the event that I'm wrong, and there is a God (who is benevolent), that he would prefer my honest doubt given the conclusions I've drawn from my experiences and understanding of the world to a vacuous pantomime of religion performed after making Pascal's wager. In short, if God is real, far be it from me to try and bullshit Him.

While I suppose any attempt to understand someone else's point of view is to be appluaded, it would be nice if Cantalessa was less patronizing about the poor athiests who must live in such misery because that's how he thinks they should act. I can't help but notice he travels the well-worn territory of assuming that lack of faith in a diety means that you must find no satisfaction or meaning in life and are therefore a creature to be pitied.

Posted by Chris | January 25, 2008 3:32 PM

"Those who are not convinced by the evidence for God's existence deserve not only contempt, but possibly pity, as well."

God forbid you engage their arguments.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm a big defender of their right to come to that conclusion. This is not sympathetic to atheists, it's condescending. The world would be a better place if Richard John Neuhaus and Christopher Hitchens were locked in a room together, stamping their feet forever.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 25, 2008 3:36 PM

Interesting - and telling - that the "good faith" atheist must be silent and not boastful. The good atheist is one who shuts up.

Sympathetic, my hairy white ass.

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 25, 2008 3:42 PM

"The world would be a better place if Richard John Neuhaus and Christopher Hitchens were locked in a room together, stamping their feet forever."

Hitchens is justified every time some nitwit justifies murder by claiming he's working under the auspices of one sky fairy or another. File under Bush, Dumbya, and bin Laden, Osama. Where he's gone wrong is in finding common cause with the former nitwit.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 3:47 PM

Neuhaus is, in part, responding to recent book by Andre' Comte-Sponville, A Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.

It's been described, by its publisher, as "a brilliant, elegant argument for spirituality without God".

Posted by David | January 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Elvis Elvisberg

I'm not an atheist, but I'm a big defender of their right to come to that conclusion. This is not sympathetic to atheists, it's condescending.

I can see why you think so. Yet... to the truley religious this profound state (of the passive atheist) is a notable & sad reality.

Father Ranier Cantalamessa is not writing (as Ross is) in order to take a swipe at C.H. and the like. Rather he is writing to other believers and describing a well known phenomena/type.

In that sense its not supposed to be “sympathetic to atheists” ; rather it is sympathetic towards humanity.

Posted by Fitz | January 25, 2008 3:53 PM

I can see why you think so. Yet... to the truley religious this profound state (of the passive atheist) is a notable & sad reality.

On what grounds does the "truly religious" know the "notable & sad reality" of passive atheists? It appears the religious propensity to idle speculation is now on steroids. How do you know the emotional implications of varieties of atheism?

Finally, could you guys have the courtesy to spell the priest's name correctly? It's Raniero, not Ranier.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 4:04 PM

"How do you know the emotional implications of varieties of atheism?"

Through what they say, & write, how they comport themselves...the positions they take & what that reveals about their worldview...the art they make, the lives they lead....

Are you not being reductionist.

How does anyone know anything about others????

Posted by Fitz | January 25, 2008 4:12 PM

We now appreciate (btw--no thanks to the church) that we are perched in a totally insignificant speck of dust in a very ordinary galaxy slowly rotating in a huge universe that gives no indication that human-kind makes the slightest difference.

We now know (btw--except for a few young-earth Christians who wish to remain ignorant) that billions of years of blind evolution including at least two near-total extinctions lead to the present homo sapiens species.

A subset of homo sapiens choses to declare that one can only have 'meaning' in life by declaring that we are the end-object of the entire process since the BigBang and that human beings'
'rdemption' was the purpose and goal of everything that has happened in the physical universe. Fr Cantalmessa is in that group.

Another subset of homo sapiens choses to look at what is and be satisfied with it. I am in that group.

And HE pities ME!? Screw you, Father.

Posted by JohnMcC | January 25, 2008 4:15 PM

Through what they say, & write, how they comport themselves...the positions they take & what that reveals about their worldview...the art they make, the lives they lead....

Do you realize that those are neither sufficient nor necessary for the conclusion it purports to support? I could rewrite the paragraph, substitute "passive Protestants," "passive communists," "passive Muslims" or "passive asswipers," and still arrive at the same conclusion? What would that say? Yes, nothing.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 4:18 PM

Karl - He's not arguing his proposition...he's discussing his proposition.

This happens every day in all circles...like minded people assume a series pretexts and exchange ideas on the shared assumption that they are accurate.

He can disagree with Raniero worldview…but you can’t fault his writing for not establishing a claim when that writing is not meant to prove that claim.

(Also - this thinking is hardly foreign to the Church. I take it to mean basically the same thing when the Catechisms talks of Agnostics as "functional atheists")

Posted by Fitz | January 25, 2008 4:32 PM

I do not doubt the sincerity of Fr. Cantalamessa. That said, as an atheist, I don't see that nihilism is a necessary conclusion, either, and even were it, why despair is the appropriate response.

I imagine that the "sad reality" is a projection by the religious. They would feel sad, even despairing, were they to no longer feel the love, belonging, and security of their faith. Ergo, for them, one without faith must be sad and filled with despair. So the "good-faith" atheist is the one who expresses despair and loneliness. By either not confronting or admitting to this despair, an atheist becomes "vulgar," "militant," a "polemicist."

Of course, when one gets to set the terms by which atheism is acceptable -- that is, the atheism that leaves the door open to one's specific conception of god -- then one gets to be condescending and pitying. But that's why all the "good" atheists are of the French schools (Camus, Sartre, Comte-Sponville), so filled with angst and despair. It's a self-fulfilling little ontology.

And it's completely dishonest, at its core.

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 25, 2008 4:49 PM

Hilarious that we've got an angry atheist posting under the name of a 20th century Jesuit theologian. An attempt to be, like, ironic, or something?

As for Rahner (the commenter), MLandJ, etc.'s view that this is condescending, I certainly don't think it's meant to be. As someone who struggles with belief/unbelief on a daily basis, I have great respect for "those who live painfully the situation of the silence of God, who do not believe in God but do not boast about it; rather they experience the existential anguish and the lack of meaning of everything: They too, in their own way, live in the dark night of the spirit." Rahner, they mention Camus, and are obviously refering to atheists of that persuasion. So, as for "guessing" what their "internal states" are, well, they only have to read The Myth of Sisyphus. Also, to MLandJ, you seem like a fairly well-read person, and it's a shame that you think that Christianity consists only of people who "feel a need to posit the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make [themselves] feel important." I am thinking of Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition that hopes that all will be saved in the end, or at least views Hell as a self-imposed condition. Yes, there are some asshole religious people, but let's not stereotype everyone and I will resist the temptation to stereotype atheists as the ones who are usually doing the "condescending."

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 4:50 PM

Ross, I'm sort of amazed. This piece seems like the very height of narcissism, of a scope that not even a Hitchens could come anywhere near close to matching. Can't you see and acknowledge that?

It's a loving picture of those who are not like yourself as being "good" only when they are positively weepy over their not being like yourself and properly underfoot and knowing their place. It's an utterly self-centered fantasy more suited to a dominatrix than a decent intellectual.

I mean, is it even possible to become more arrogant than to celebrate and salivate over the idea of people who don't share your beliefs as being pitiable, destitute, and so pleadingly sorry that they are not like yourself that they stay out of sight and don't dare criticize you?

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Hilarious that we've got an angry atheist posting under the name of a 20th century Jesuit theologian. An attempt to be, like, ironic, or something?

It's an attempt to find the first idiot who'd think certain names are exclusive to their popular 'owners'.

Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus is about the human condition. It neither suggests nor claims exclusive intimacy or engagement with the "internal states of passive atheists."

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Agreed that this is condescending speculation, offered wholly without evidence. I'm an atheist, and I do not "experience the existential anguish and the lack of meaning of everything". I also find evangelical atheists like Hitchens, who seem unable to admit that anything good has ever come of any religion, no end of obnoxious.

Posted by Elliot Reed | January 25, 2008 4:59 PM

The actual essay is, I daresay even worse. Neuhaus is a polemicist ghoul, whose deepest insight seems to lie in Godwinizing those who don't share his ideology.

Yes yes: without your ideology, "our lives have no value." (Not that he can explain how his ideology gives or explains life value in any way different or superior than any other means, of course: it's all simply a bluff) Wonderful. So gracious.

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 5:00 PM

I wouldn't dare speak for Neuhaus or Cantalamessa, but in my opinion, why us religious have more respect for atheists of this "persausion" is because, in our opinion, they are more honest with themselves than the rest. In this sense, I would include Nietzsche in this category. I don't think it has anything to do with "being quiet" or "not criticizing" religious. It has to do with acknowledging that without God, life is meaningless. James Elliot, I think you are right that this does not necessarily lead to despair (as it didn't, arguably, with Nietszche), but it does lead to recognition that we live in any pretty scary, dangerous universe, made more so, by the death of God. I realize this highly debatable, I'm just trying to put forth the thinking behind the "respect" for these sort of atheists.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 5:02 PM

The problem with Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al is that they are militant atheists who despise believers and their ways and write venomous polemical tomes about it.

Father Cantalessma is critical of Hitchens, though he manages to do this charitably with his essay, Christopher Hitchens and the end of evolution. as follows:

But Christopher Hitchens is an intelligent man. He foresees that religion will survive even his attack, just as it has survived countless others before it, and he goes to the trouble of providing an explanation for this embarrassing fact: “Religious faith”, he writes, “precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, is ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other”. Religion is only a provisional, intermediate state, connected with the situation of man as “an evolving being”. Thus the author tacitly assumes the role of one who has single-handedly broken through this barrier, anticipating the end of evolution and “returning” to earth, like Nietsche’s Zarathustra, to enlighten poor mortals about the way things really are.

There is a way of handling these matters in a gentle, civil way like the father or in a edgy and overbearing way like Hitchens who betrays this with such a book title as God is Not Great.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 25, 2008 5:05 PM

The non-theologian Karl Rahner writes: "It's an attempt to find the first idiot who'd think certain names are exclusive to their popular 'owners'.

Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus is about the human condition. It neither suggests nor claims exclusive intimacy or engagement with the "internal states of passive atheists."

Why do you atheists always feel the need to call people who disagree with them, especially the religious, "idiots"? Wait, let me guess, it's because I believe in God. Yea, not condescending at all.

As far as The Myth of Sisyphus, it's been about 5 years but, from what I remember, sorry dude, it's all about uh, whether the non-existence of God and the absurdity of the universe, like, requires suicide. I'd say that has a lot to do with despair and shit.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 5:11 PM

human beings' 'rdemption' was the purpose and goal of everything that has happened in the physical universe

That's rather questionable. Assuming many notion of free will and contigency, and a kind of "honesty" in creation, physical creation was Good before the Fall, and would have been Good (better?) without it. Not to throw out "fortunate fall" ideas and such, but it's at the least reasonable and at the most critical for Christians to grant that stars and seas and rocks and trees have goal in the Glory of God, which is not all made for the benefit of man. We may be stewards and rulers of this creation, but it wasn't, definitively, made only for our delight.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 25, 2008 5:13 PM

Also, to MLandJ, you seem like a fairly well-read person, and it's a shame that you think that Christianity consists only of people who "feel a need to posit the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make [themselves] feel important." I am thinking of Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition that hopes that all will be saved in the end, or at least views Hell as a self-imposed condition.

Nothing new here. Apokatastasis is not exclusive to Gregory of Nyssa or his quasi-progenies like von Balthasar. It's present in Jesus and Paul even though its roots lie in ancient Greek philosophy/religion (and in rudimentary form in Empedocles' 'eschatology'). The greater truth, however, is that Christian theology and its history is inherently exclusionary. It has to be. Again go back to Jesus and Paul and, for entertainment, Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam. At this point, you may detect what appears to be a whiff of contradiction in my interpretation of Christian history of soteriology. After all, apokatastasis and exclusiveness cannot co-exist since they are logical contaries. If you detected this tension, you'd be right. That's because Christianity has spoken, like Jesus and the man of resentment, Paul, from both sides of its mouth. Extra ecclesia nihil salus is as Christian (or Catholic if you wish) as the openness of Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, von Balthasar, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. Were it not so, Lumen Gentium would be virtually redundant and the argument over the appropriate translation of its famous Latin phrase "subsistit in" (hint: sensitivity to its ecclesiological/soteriological import) would be equally unnecessary. Btw, the prototype of the tension b/w exclusion and inclusion can be found in YHWH's ambiguous relationship to Jews and gentiles.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 5:20 PM

Why do you atheists always feel the need to call people who disagree with them, especially the religious, "idiots"? Wait, let me guess, it's because I believe in God. Yea, not condescending at all.

Derrick, as a matter of policy I do not call people names unless they dish it out first. You insulted me first by calling me an "angry atheist" - anger being suggestive of emotional indiscipline. I returned the compliment. That's all.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 5:28 PM

Rahner, talk about writing a lot and saying very little. We can disagree over whether or not Apocastasis and "exclusiveness" is "talking from both sides of the mouth." But that's besides the point. The point I was merely trying to make was that right or wrong, it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that all, or even most, of Christian tradition rests on the belief (and hope) that many will be damned (and is gleeful because of it).

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 5:33 PM

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 5:28 PM

Fair enough, but your first post did seem rather "angry." And, of couse, calling someone angry is not necessarily an insult, most especially not to that person's intellect. But OK, I apologize for calling you "angry."

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 5:38 PM

The problem with Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al is that they are militant atheists who despise believers and their ways and write venomous polemical tomes about it.

But they don't. Have you even read, for example, "God Is Not Great"? One can agree or disagree with Hitchens's arguments -- I found them a tad simplistic and generic -- but one cannot be left, if one is honest, with anything other than the fact that Hitchens respects individuals' beliefs on that level. It is entirely possible to mock the whole while sparing the individual, which is what all those "militant" atheists do.

I'm just trying to put forth the thinking behind the "respect" for these sort of atheists.

I truly appreciate both your sincerity and your tone, but I really think that the problem with this "respect" is that it is only granted when it dovetails with the predispositions of the religious. "Good faith" doesn't mean "open to conversion;" it means "honestly arrived at." To deny one (your?) conception -- that without god all is scary and dark -- isn't necessarily dishonest.

It has to do with acknowledging that without God, life is meaningless.

I've never understood how that is so. What is actually being said here, it seems to me, is that "Without MY conception of god, there is no teleology, and without that purpose, what is there to hope for?" That is a truly narrow view. It seems to me that the existence of god would render existence pointless: knowing where the road ends blunts the journey.

"...it does lead to recognition that we live in any pretty scary, dangerous universe, made more so, by the death of God."

But then, courage isn't being shielded from fear, it is acting in the face of it. The world is scary and uncertain with or without god. A question that can't be answered with the limited faculties available to us isn't helpful in that regard, unless one inserts and clings to a positive answer.

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 25, 2008 5:39 PM

Derrick: "It has to do with acknowledging that without God, life is meaningless."

The fact that you think this position is "more honest" speaks volumes, and it does not speak well of you. It belies an arrogance that can never begin to compare to any of the outspoken atheists in question.

Open your eyes, and see what you're really saying. Your beliefs are so central, so unquestionable, that without them being true, all would be is meaningless. How can that presumption compare to someone saying that your claims are mistaken or unfounded, however coarsely they do it?

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 5:42 PM

Mr Marquis:

Usually I don't revisit these comment sections partly because I find that lengthy debates don't show me the best part of myself. Partly because I try to do other fun things with my days and these sections tend to suck me right in (to the despair of my Mrs).

I'll just say that my long journey thru Christianity was mostly in the 'reformed' and Calvinist variety. In ways that I don't want to try to unravel, for those Christians the crucifixion, resurrection and the pentecost event are--because 'predestined'--the central event in all history.

I suppose that there are Christians who can imagine a God--to--creation relationship without human beings and feel that God would be 'satisfied' with that. He did look on the acts of creation and declare them 'good'. But I think most orthodox and historical theologians would disagree and say that creation without humanity in it would not be a completed creative act. And that the pre-knowledge of man's 'fall' and the 'redemption' thru Christ's death and resurrection thus is the final act of creation.

Anyhow, that's how I recall it. As you can imagine, I don't trouble my head about it much these days.

Thanks for the consideration of your reply.

Posted by JohnMcC | January 25, 2008 5:44 PM

Derrick, I too apologize for the idiot comment.

At this point, we'll have to disagree on whether Cantalamessa's piece was condescending (i think it is) , whether existential angst infects the "internal states of passive atheists" qua their atheism (i think that's possible, but neither proven nor exclusive to said atheists), whether god(s) is necessary to meaning in life (i think it's not; which god?), and, of course, we'd have to disagree about the ancillary metaphysical differences that underlie the disagreement.

As for the mild insult that I'm voluble, you may be right. Concision is a virtue. I cannot claim to have mastered it. Good luck.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 5:46 PM

"And, of couse, calling someone angry is not necessarily an insult, most especially not to that person's intellect."

Given that it is the common and cliched means in which theists tiresomely seek to dismiss critics, it is an accusation that should probably be leveled with more care.

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 5:47 PM

James, I actually agree with you. It does have to do with, more or less, accepting certain "predispositions of the religious." And perhaps it's not a matter of honesty, it's just a matter of we think that atheists who think that meaning can be found without God are simply wrong (it would probably be unfair to say they are delusional or dishonest, and for suggesting that, I apologize). And, you are of course right that this has all to do with teleology. Narrow? Yes, probably, but again, I don't think that makes it wrong. I think the genuinely religious/atheist must first acknowledge that we live in a broken world, full of heartbreak, etc., etc. Then one must either decide that 1) there is an ultimate purpose or direction or 2) there is not an ultimate purpose or direction. I think these are the only genuine answers. I'm not sure I follow your view "that the existence of god would render existence pointless: knowing where the road ends blunts the journey." It is not "knowing" where the road ends so much as arriving at the destination. Perhaps you could argue that it is the journey itself that is the meaning (and the courage in the face of it--a very Nietzschean response), but I find this highly unsatisfactory (but again, a respectable view).

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Calling atheists "angry" has seemed to me to be more of an act of infantilization. I typically see it leveled in the same, dismissive tone that one might speak of an obstinate child who, denied their preference, screams "I hate you!" to its parents.

Atheists must be angry the better to dismiss what they say.

I imagine that's what a religious person feels if an atheist proclaims them an "idiot."

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 25, 2008 5:54 PM

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 5:42

Bad writes: "The fact that you think this position is "more honest" speaks volumes, and it does not speak well of you. It belies an arrogance that can never begin to compare to any of the outspoken atheists in question."

Well, I admitted in my first post that I often struggle with belief/unbelief, I hardly think that makes me "arrogant." In many ways, I'm an agnostic, but I do sincerely hope there is an ultimate telos for the world, mostly because I think the world is a pretty shitty place. Walker Percy once said when comparing and contrasting Melville and Dostoevsky that the former blamed God for evil while the latter looked to God to save him from it. I guess I'm in the Dostoevsky camp, although I admit that I'm sometimes in the other. It's not a matter of thinking the Melville/quasi-atheist position is stupid, I just hope it's wrong. And yes, I am well aware that hoping does not make it so.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 6:00 PM

I think the genuinely religious/atheist must first acknowledge that we live in a broken world, full of heartbreak, etc., etc.

Indeed we do.

Then one must either decide that 1) there is an ultimate purpose or direction or 2) there is not an ultimate purpose or direction.

Indeed there is not. Not to be cavalier about it, but because I love to quote Denis Leary, "life sucks; wear a helmet."

I'm not sure I follow your view "that the existence of god would render existence pointless: knowing where the road ends blunts the journey." It is not "knowing" where the road ends so much as arriving at the destination. Perhaps you could argue that it is the journey itself that is the meaning (and the courage in the face of it--a very Nietzschean response), but I find this highly unsatisfactory (but again, a respectable view).

I would have to say that it is the not knowing that is the very point. We can't know, for certain, and so to focus on anything other than how we live our lives and leave our world for those who come after is, I feel, a profound act of cowardice. I don't need to know how it ends, or even if it does indeed end or not, to take joy in living life. Teleology comes from within, from human passion and drive and, yes, love. Teleology isn't gifted to us; it's what we give to ourselves.

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 25, 2008 6:01 PM

"Well, I admitted in my first post that I often struggle with belief/unbelief, I hardly think that makes me "arrogant."

Okay, then if that isn't a claim you are asserting, then I retract it in your case but certainly not for Neuhuas and Cantalamessa. One can of course believe that their ideology is so important that all is nothing without it, but one cannot believe that and then have the temerity to accuse others of arrogance, or claim to judge whether others are acting on "good faith" or not. The deployment of such a rhetorical nuke is pretty much the ultimate in bad faith, followed up by Neuhuas' usual lazy Godwinizing (as lame and as stupid as anything he accuses Hitchens or Dawkins of).

"it's just a matter of we think that atheists who think that meaning can be found without God are simply wrong"

This would be more convincing if anyone could explain how meaning can be found with God... and then explain how this path is any different or more fundamental from any other philosophical method. Theologians, of course, make this claim of superiority all the time. I've never seen it to turn out to be anything other than a bluff.

And I think there is a real fundamental confusion over the concept of meaning. Speaking of meaning without specifying what is meaningful to whom is an incomplete thought.

And the fact that atheists do find meaning in life and the lives of others is a simple fact, not a point of debate. You can insist that this meaning isn't "justified" but again: what the heck could that even mean? I have to "justify" my love for my parents now? How would anyone even begin to go about arguing that I'm "wrong" to do so without simply pointlessly begging the question?

Posted by Bad | January 25, 2008 6:12 PM

James and Bad,

Well, in some ways, I think I already explained my position about what the existence of God "means." To the Christian, it means that through Christ's redemptive death, all the suffering, misery, and death of the world does not have the last say, that it will be overcome in the end, that death is the last enemy to be conquered, that lion will lay down with lamb, etc. Perhaps a naive hope, but to this individual it constitutes more "meaning" than some Nietszchean "affirmation of life" or belief that it's "all in the journey" because these two beliefs might constitute some meaning for the individual, but I do not see how they give ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe or world as a whole.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 6:43 PM

Derrick writes: "Also, to MLandJ, you seem like a fairly well-read person, and it's a shame that you think that Christianity consists only of people who "feel a need to posit the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make [themselves] feel important." I am thinking of Gregory of Nyssa, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition that hopes that all will be saved in the end, or at least views Hell as a self-imposed condition. Yes, there are some asshole religious people, but let's not stereotype everyone and I will resist the temptation to stereotype atheists as the ones who are usually doing the "condescending.""

Since I didn't say "Christianity consists only of people blah blah blah" and since I have never thought such a thing, once again you're reading a meaning into my comments that isn't there. But I certainly do believe that mainstream Christianity has traditionally taught - and for the most part, continues to teach - that one must accept the Jesus myth in order to avoid hell. You can name all of the exceptions you can come up with, and I could give many myself, but that doesn't change the traditional message.

The comment you misinterpret was made to another unbeliever, and was meant to express my disgust with the Stupid Christian Trick of insisting that nonbelievers lack any sense of "meaning."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 7:33 PM

I have to admit even though I'm Catholic I find Father Ranier Cantalamessa statement to be pitying and not very accurate. It's trying to be nice, I guess, but just makes atheists sound more dour and pitiable than what I've seen. Some of them are, but I don't know if the only sympathetic ones are.

To me a "Good Faith Atheist" would be foremost a person who rejects God and the supernatural "in Good Faith" meaning they're atheist because they honestly find it correct or proper. This is as opposed to people, often young people, whose atheism sprang from spite or rebelliousness. A "Good Faith Atheist" would not necessarily be a "Good Atheist." A person in Good Faith could decide atheism is correct and Enver Hoxha was a hero for smashing up churches. A "Good Atheist" would be more a Good-Faith atheist who treats others well and tolerates opinions s/he deems erroneous.

True I've said in the past that since atheism is based in saying that most of the world's people, now and in history, are deluded it doesn't really allow for acceptance of other beliefs. I've not changed that opinion, but tolerance doesn't have to mean acceptance. An atheist can believe a theist has fallen into error or delusion while tolerating either thing. Just as a Catholic, even before Vatican II, could tolerate erroneous people.

Posted by Thomas R | January 25, 2008 8:00 PM

True I've said in the past that since atheism is based in saying that most of the world's people, now and in history, are deluded it doesn't really allow for acceptance of other beliefs. I've not changed that opinion....

On this matter, you are not much different from atheists. As a Catholic, you also have to accept that most of the world's people have been or are deluded since you do not subscribe to their particular construction of god(s). From a Catholic perspective, belief in Zeus, Thor, African jujus, and so on are delusions insofar as those entities are imaginary. In fact, the latest - and most charitable Catholic interpretation of such gods is that they are good faith albeit inaccurate representations of the one true God, who revealed himself from Abraham to John, sent his son to die for human sins, etc.

[Delusion here is used in the weak sense - as an error.]

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 8:19 PM

Moe, fair enough, and I certainly agree with you that Christianity still continues to teach that one must accept the Jesus "myth" in order to avoid Hell. But that's a lot different from "positing the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make yourself feel important." First, when I see that, without a qualifier, even if it is sarcastic in tone, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that's how you think most Christians think. Second, my main problem is with your insinuation that Hell is posited out of some glee on the part of Christians, as if they delight in the future torment of the unwashed. Now, granted, there are (too) many like this (the despicable Phelps clan comes to mind), but I think now even "traditional" Christianity has moved decidely away from such a view (and Orthodoxy has generally always been opposed to such a view). Anyways, I'm glad you don't think that all Christians hold such a view.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 8:22 PM

Derrick again: "Moe, fair enough, and I certainly agree with you that Christianity still continues to teach that one must accept the Jesus "myth" in order to avoid Hell. But that's a lot different from "positing the eternal torture of most of the human race in order to make yourself feel important." First, when I see that, without a qualifier, even if it is sarcastic in tone, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that's how you think most Christians think."

Put it in the context of the topic, where atheists suffer from the "lack of meaning," and you should be able to see the sarcasm. Also, I look at my posts here as a body of work and we both know you've read my comments before. I don't feel driven to explain everything I'm about in each and every post, but if I've made one thing clear here it's that I'm not a black and white absolutist.

The bottom line, which you yourself have basically conceded, is that Christianity HAS posited that most of the human race will be damned, that damnation amounts to eternal torture, and that the Christian viewpoint gives life meaning whereas atheists lack meaning. I suggest you don't really disagree with what I said, you just wish I would be kinder to your fellow religionists when I say it.

Now as for the "glee" part - I don't believe most Christians feel glee over the damnation of others. But they do believe that they'll be perfectly happy in their afterlife despite the terrible fate of the rest of us. I know some make the excuse that they simply won't remember the non-saved, which strikes me as a real ignorance-is-bliss argument, but the whole notion should make anyone queasy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 25, 2008 8:34 PM

You know, I think that's a reasonable characterization of my views concerning your posts, Moe: "Fair points, but why can't he just be nicer??"
Cheers, I'm out for the night.

Posted by Derrick | January 25, 2008 8:51 PM

Let the 'good' book speak for itself:

But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8.12 (Douay-Rheims Version)

And the smoke of their torments shall ascend up for ever and ever: neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whoever receiveth the character of his name. Apocalypse 14:11 (Douay-Rheims Version)

There are too many hell references in the New Testament; you know, that most peaceful part of the scriptures.

Believe in me or you will be tortured forever. How uplifting.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 25, 2008 8:51 PM

I hate to mince words, but atheism and theism deals with belief. You can't be an atheist and be reject by good- Satan for example is a theist. After all a person who has been rejected by God would know of his existance.

I also find it odd that people always state that the "New" atheists are arrogant. All there are saying is that a large group of people are mistaken on their basic concept of reality. They don't call believers fools or idiots- they think they are perfectly same, just deluded or in extreme cases warped by their faith so much that normal human deceny is foreign to them (see the people who attack homosexuals). And this is all considered arrogance!

There is no reason to believe Christianity is true any more than any other mythology.

Posted by Samuel Skinner | January 25, 2008 10:00 PM

Do the majority of Christians really believe that Hell is a place of eternal torment, and does it really gel with orthodoxy? It seems like it's one of those cultural popular conceptions picked out of the Divine Comedy.

Posted by Quietus | January 25, 2008 10:03 PM

Correction, I was referring to eternal "torture", not torment. Torture is something that someone does to you. *Insert reference to current administration here.* Torment could be the despair and sorrow someone experiences.

Posted by Quietus | January 25, 2008 10:06 PM

"On this matter, you are not much different from atheists."

In a way this is true. On some level I have a great respect for the fact that atheists are not relativist/po-mo people who think anything you assert is "true for you." If atheism had an appeal for me at times in my life it's because it does value truth and objective reality.

Still Catholics, even before Vatican II, could indicate that certain religions were correct on some things. Many theologians had rather elaborate systems for working out which religions were closer to correct than which. In theory atheists should also be able to see some religions as "closer to accurate" while recognizing their "core delusion" ie theism. Possibly even make some kind of utilitarian study based on cost/benefit of each religious system. In practice I don't see many atheists doing this right now. Religion is simply untrue and therefore bad, which I think is rather simplistic. I'm pretty certain elves do not exist, but whether that makes belief in elves negative or bad I'm not ready to judge. An argument against it being bad is Iceland. They have a rather high percentage of "elf belief" and are also one of the most livable nations on Earth.

"Believe in me or you will be tortured forever. How uplifting."

Simple disbelief is not universally seen as sending someone to Hell. Nor are all religions Sola Scriptura or uninterested in interpretation. Still Hell can be a tricky one.

Posted by Thomas R | January 25, 2008 11:20 PM

Quietus wonders: "Do the majority of Christians really believe that Hell is a place of eternal torment, and does it really gel with orthodoxy? It seems like it's one of those cultural popular conceptions picked out of the Divine Comedy."

It's not. It's what has been the teaching of mainstream Christianity all along. See the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, Catholic catechisms, and the New Testament itself.

You can try to sanitize Christianity all you want, but it still contains the eternal stench of burning flesh. Sick shit, folks. Sick shit.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 26, 2008 1:20 AM

On some level I have a great respect for the fact that atheists are not relativist/po-mo people who think anything you assert is "true for you." If atheism had an appeal for me at times in my life it's because it does value truth and objective reality.

None of my atheist friends take po-mo seriously. And yes, we value and care about objective truth. Expecting otherwise of us hints at the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Still Catholics, even before Vatican II, could indicate that certain religions were correct on some things.

True, but irrelevant. After all, the proposition that even wacky faiths/philosophies are right on some things is too self-evident.

Many theologians had rather elaborate systems for working out which religions were closer to correct than which.

But notice that the template for their analysis is the unambiguous conviction that their own religion is the true one; this conviction is now untenable and risible.

In theory atheists should also be able to see some religions as "closer to accurate" while recognizing their "core delusion" ie theism. Possibly even make some kind of utilitarian study based on cost/benefit of each religious system. In practice I don't see many atheists doing this right now. Religion is simply untrue and therefore bad, which I think is rather simplistic.

Relatively fair criticism, but it breaks down if one acknowledges that the utility of an idea or system of ideas has no bearing whatsoever on its truth value. In some weird sense, atheists honour religion by engaging its truth claims and thus not reducing it to a mere agglomeration of charity clubs.

Simple disbelief is not universally seen as sending someone to Hell. Nor are all religions Sola Scriptura or uninterested in interpretation. Still Hell can be a tricky one.

Translation - we, theologically sophisticated Catholics, do not buy into sola fidei, sola scriptura, sola gratia, etc. But then read the last sentence of the Bull, Unam Sanctam, and you'd come away with different conclusions. Btw, pay attention to the great humble phrase - "absolutely necessary." Lest you think I'm picking on a theologically jejune text, keep in mind that the pronouncements of the Pontiff on matters of faith and morals are supposed to be true and eternal. Secondly, recent pronouncements on the issue remain essentially faithful to the spirit of Unam Sanctam. (See Dominus Iesus, Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Mistici Corporis, etc). Now enjoy the line from Boniface VIII:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. - Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam)[emphasis added]

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 26, 2008 7:43 AM

Count me among those who consider this ridiculously patronizing. I love that "good faith atheists" are a "new category."

I recognize that it is cliche, but imagine reversing this paragraph. I could write of "good faith" and "bad faith" Christians. Instead of choosing between rejecting God and being rejected by God, I could distinguish between those that don't understand reason and those that ignore it. Is that different than the quoted section?

In general, I think it is a good rule to try to avoid writing of the inner psychologies of those who have a profound disagreement with you. You are unlikely to be able to see them objectively.

Finally, the comment about "good faith" athiests not boasting about it reminds me of how other majorities have reacted to minorities in the past. The tolerant majority can accept their existance, but the minority should at least keep quiet in return.

Tom

Posted by Tom G. | January 26, 2008 10:29 AM

It's not only patronizing and condescending, it's obnoxious and presumptuous.

You can cram it with walnuts, churchy!

Posted by Jeff | January 26, 2008 11:04 AM

As refreshing as Father Cantalamessa's recognition of the existence of good-faith atheists may appear to be, it is noteworthy that he does not recognize the existence of good-faith anti-theists.

I regard myself as an atheist, inasmuch as I do not believe in the existence of an entity deserving of the description "designer and creator of the universe," but this lack of belief of mine is not central to my identity as a human being. I happen to have an intellectual disagreement with believers about the plausibility of the existence of a creator, but it is a cordial and respectful one.

What is more central to my identity as a human being has to do with something Father Cantalamessa does recognize in good-faith atheists: I take religion very seriously, and I think very deeply about the moral issues that are raised by certain types of belief. My take on the problem of evil is that it shows that the attributes "creator," "roughly omnipotent," and "roughly morally perfect," are roughly inconsistent. And so it is my personal moral conviction that, should there exist a roughly omnipotent creator, that He/She/It would be deserving of intense moral scrutiny rather than reverence. I have a grudge against that sort of God, and that defines me more centrally than any intellectual belief of mine about the likelihood of the existence of a designer.

All of this I profess in good faith, and not with the aim of dismissing the beliefs of others, nor with the aim of claiming religious people to be immoral, nor anything else in that vain.

Posted by pedro | January 26, 2008 11:24 AM

"Derrick: Perhaps a naive hope, but to this individual it constitutes more "meaning" than some Nietszchean "affirmation of life" or belief that it's "all in the journey" because these two beliefs might constitute some meaning for the individual, but I do not see how they give ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe or world as a whole."

But in that sense, all you are talking about is just another sort of affirmation of the same kind, and one that relies just as much on your own judgment as anything else. You like pleasure and dislike pain, like justice and dislike evil, so the hope that all will be redeemed by some sort of cosmic correctional system is meaningful to you. But that isn't the same thing as saying that theism provides meaning in a way that nothing else can. It simply tells a particular story, and you happen to really care about the particular outcome.

Again, would you really find life to be meaningless if that story were false? In fact, would that even make sense? How can you find, for instance, the story of Christian redemption to be meaningful if you don't ALREADY have a standard of justice that you care about and are measuring it with? It seems like all the meaning is already there for you beforehand, and that is WHY you hope for this particular outcome, rather than that outcome being the source and "justification" for that hope.

Posted by Bad | January 26, 2008 12:28 PM

Thomas R: "Simple disbelief is not universally seen as sending someone to Hell."

As far as I can tell from my read of the Bible, failing to believe the correct things is pretty much one of the only unforgivable sins. Which, honestly, seems monstrously intellectually evil. People being factually mistaken should NEVER be considered to be the same as intentionally evil, certainly not on some grand scale of eternal torment.

Most atheism, by the way, is simple disbelief (i.e. lack of belief). What often seems to confuse people on this score is the difference between arguments and conclusions. Most atheists object strongly to what they see as bad or misleading arguments, abuses of logic, abuses of science and evidence, and so on. But these disagreements are not the same thing as "strong atheism" (i.e. asserting the, in my mind, wholly unnecessary position that no gods exist, period) despite how often they are mistaken for it.

Posted by Bad | January 26, 2008 12:33 PM

"But notice that the template for their analysis is the unambiguous conviction that their own religion is the true one; this conviction is now untenable and risible."

To you. In any event everyone is going to judge based on some template.

"but it breaks down if one acknowledges that the utility of an idea or system of ideas has no bearing whatsoever on its truth value."

This is still assuming the truth value must be the main or sole arbiter of value. I don't see why that should be the case. In any event even if it were some religions should be more in line with "the truth" than others even going by an atheist perspective. A religion that agrees that science provides the explanation for all natural phenomenon is more true than one that believes thunder is caused by magical sky-gods or that the rainbow is caused by magical fairies.

"Lest you think I'm picking on a theologically jejune text, keep in mind that the pronouncements of the Pontiff on matters of faith and morals are supposed to be true and eternal."

There are factors to be considered here that I think you are not doing. Not every encyclical or Bull is considered infallible in all detail. Especially when you're dealing with ones before Vatican I when the binding nature was not something a Pope would necessarily claim in the same way. Hence there is a Bull saying that Christ was not born poor and another saying Catholics must believe he was born poor. Granting that there are people like the Society of St. Pius X who try to see every Encyclical and Bull as infallible, working some way to do this, but they're generally deemed fringe.

As for every human be subject to the Pope this is something that can be interpreted in varying ways. As I recall Boniface was politically ambitious so specifically desired power. This is not a necessary or vital interpretation of the matter.

"As far as I can tell from my read of the Bible, failing to believe the correct things is pretty much one of the only unforgivable sins."

The early Christians often did see it this way. Although even then many believed they were deprived of God, but had material happiness. This would still be Hell, by definition, as it lacks God. There would also be regret, presumably, and some sadness for being wrong. There can be regret, and some sadness, for being wrong on a test. This relates to the concept of Limbo which, unfortunately, recent Pontiffs seem to poo-poo. The traditional Christian answer without Limbo is that unborn babies and the unbaptized go to Hell proper unless they were in some sense persecuted for Christ. (As with the "Holy Innocents")

Anyway after the discovery of the New World the idea of unbelievers all going properly to Hell was questioned and revised in most Christianity. Basically what you're saying might be true then, but it's true for a Christianity that's much more legalistic and Medieval than what most modern Christians believe. That many of you are reaching to the fourteenth century, when you could even reach to the nineteenth for similar, is telling in that respect.

Still these questions have some merit and do vex me at times. (Well not the one about disbelievers all going to Hell proper, that's just silly.)

Posted by Thomas R | January 26, 2008 7:51 PM

Ross-if you weren't so fixed on propagating pure condescension (unhinged from any facts or even any actual arguments) as your primary rhetorical vehicle against Atheism, you might find yourself in the unenviable position of actually facing the objections of your opponents. But I suppose it is better to project casual disdain knowing that all your christian buddies will smile and nod in solidarity no matter how ridiculous your statements actually are.

Posted by gerontion | January 26, 2008 10:10 PM

Interestingly the article he quotes mentions an atheist who sounds sincere and not pathetic. I guess this André Comte-Sponville is more about truth, love, and creating meaning than harranguing at theists. I like that. It's sort of the older school atheism I was used to from reading Asimov, Sagan, et alia.

I guess my probably is really more with the Brits. Well maybe not, but it does seem like Britain produces these cranky sharp-tongued figures that other nations don't as much. Looking back on it my conversations online with French or German atheists have actually been quite pleasant by and large. British or Australians not so much. Granted part of that is the French or German atheists I've met online see theism as so alien to their life it's not threatening or upsetting. It's like how a Christian might view a Pygmy who worships the trees or skies. It's like quaint more than anything. (Tastes vary though. Some people prefer hostility to indifference or condescension)

Posted by Thomas R | January 27, 2008 3:00 AM

"But notice that the template for their analysis is the unambiguous conviction that their own religion is the true one; this conviction is now untenable and risible."

To you. In any event everyone is going to judge based on some template.

To me? Notice that you are defending relativism.

In any event even if it were some religions should be more in line with "the truth" than others even going by an atheist perspective.

Religions typically aren't modest to admit gradations of truth. They make exclusive claims to having the truth. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life...No one cometh unto the Father except through me.... blah, blah, blah." Accepting levels of truth is to import non-religious criteria in determining the 'truths' of religion. And you unwittingly fall into the trap by contrasting scientific and religious accounts for thunders. It would also help to reflect on the church's murder of scientists for adducing heliocentric theories that if found reprehensible because it supposedly undermined the "unique position of man."

Not every encyclical or Bull is considered infallible in all detail.

True and irrelevant. The determinant of infallibility has nothing to do with the medium but with the content and subject (faith and morals) and manner (ex cathedra).

...Especially when you're dealing with ones before Vatican I when the binding nature was not something a Pope would necessarily claim in the same way.

The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with whether a pope claims it or not. And even absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement was made before or after Vatican I. The doctrine, as the church interprets it, derives mostly from Matthew 16 v 13-19 and Isaiah 22 v 22. According to the church, the doctrine has always been true and in force even prior to its official formulation in 1870. Hence, the infallibility enjoyed by such pronouncements as contained in Benedictus Deus (Pope Benedict XII in 1336) and Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII in 1950)

Hence there is a Bull saying that Christ was not born poor and another saying Catholics must believe he was born poor.

Again it's not about the medium - Bull, Encyclical or Apostolic Letter. Secondly, whether Christ was born poor or not is not a soteriologically relevant truth, the kind that is the object of infallible proclamations. In fairness to the popes, none of them (as far as I know) has claimed that belief in Christ's poverty is relevant to salvation.

As I recall Boniface [VIII] was politically ambitious so specifically desired power.

Boniface as politically ambitious? Now, that's an understatement. But, let's ignore that and focus on the issue. By the church's own analytical strictures, his political motives is irrelevant to the 'truth' of his proclamations, as they would be five centuries and sixty eight years later in the First Vatican Council's and Pius IX's promulgation of the infallibility doctrine in Pastor Aeternus.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 27, 2008 9:24 AM

"To me? Notice that you are defending relativism."

TR: Rejecting relativism doesn't mean all matters are objective and that there is no such thing as subjectivity. In this case the claim that a certain thing was "untenable and risible" was largely a matter of opinion. If you said that a work of art was "untenable and risible" this would also be your opinion and I could recognize it is subjectively valid for you while not stating it is an objective fact.

"Accepting levels of truth is to import non-religious criteria in determining the 'truths' of religion."

I'm not sure what you're meaning here, but of course religions can be analyzed through proper reason and nature. In the book of Baruch "pagans" are judged on a differing scale based on what they worship and the behaviors that entails. In Catholic traditions certain points of books could be condemned while others acceptable. In Islamic tradition ijtihad allows for interpretation and judgment on which interpretation coheres best.

"It would also help to reflect on the church's murder of scientists for adducing heliocentric theories that if found reprehensible because it supposedly undermined the "unique position of man."

It might except I know of no such things ever happening. Galileo, Copernicus, etc were not executed. Bruno was executed for pantheism and was not a scientist anyway. Still if you can name these scientists murdered by the church for teaching heliocenticity I'd be much obliged.

"True and irrelevant. The determinant of infallibility has nothing to do with the medium but with the content and subject (faith and morals) and manner (ex cathedra)."

Very well show me the theologian of the last 150 years who deems the Bull you named infallible. You are wanting me to trust your judgment on what counts as infallible and I don't find that compelling.

Posted by Thomas R | January 28, 2008 2:57 AM

Re: As far as I can tell from my read of the Bible, failing to believe the correct things is pretty much one of the only unforgivable sins.

The problem here is that in Biblical Greek the words for "faith" and "belief" (various forms of "pisteuo") have far more the connotation of English "trust" than of English "belief". They are not about some intellectual exercize in assenting to certain propositions and far more about maintaining a not-always-easy relationship with God. Modern Christians make the same mistake of course when they think faith is simply about saying "I believe the Eath is just 6000 years old" or something like that. This doesn't cut it, and in the New Testament you can find ample evidence of that ("Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will be saved"; "Faith without works is dead") And even in Dante's blood-curdling Inferno, people whose only fault was to die with Christian faith were not under any torment, but dwelt in Limbo, deprived of the bliss of Heaven, but not suffering the torments of hell either.

Re: The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with whether a pope claims it or not.

A papal statement must be made ex cathedra to receive the status of infallibility.

Posted by JonF | January 28, 2008 4:30 PM

JonF writes: "And even in Dante's blood-curdling Inferno, people whose only fault was to die with Christian faith were not under any torment, but dwelt in Limbo, deprived of the bliss of Heaven, but not suffering the torments of hell either."

Limbo has been decertified, so it's no longer a part of Catholic lore. Perhaps the otherwise-faultless will now get sent to Oklahoma instead.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 5:11 PM

"Limbo has been decertified, so it's no longer a part of Catholic lore."

A Catholic can still believe in Limbo if they so desire. It's not taught anymore, but it's not condemned.

One theory that apparently existed going back to the Middle Ages that, I think, I heard from Cardinal Dulles was that truly good non-Christians are inspired by the Holy Spirit whether they know this or not. Therefore at some point before their death, even if they say nothing about it or get baptized, they will be "enlightened" in some sense and go to Heaven or maybe spend a bit of time in Purgatory first. This is based in part on the statement about "other sheep" that the Mormons really go on about.

In any event judging from what I read of John Paul II non-Christians may go to Heaven. Although even going back to Pius IX there was a belief that non-Christians may go to Heaven, but for him he stated this only occurs if they are "invincibly ignorant." (Like Pre-Colombian American Indians, pre-contact Australian aborigines, etc) I got the sense John Paul II was being a bit more expansive with the idea while nevertheless indicating that they are still wrong, just forgiven for it because cultural or other factors made conversion impossible. Granted stuff like this is why Society of St. Pius X and other Vatican II rejectors deemed JPII to be an uber-liberal near-heretic.

Posted by Thomas R | January 28, 2008 7:37 PM

Well also one other thing on Boniface. It is true the Church does still believe the Catholic faith, and therefore to a degree the Pope, is necessary for salvation. It's just this is understood in a different way than a largely illiterate Medieval populace would interpret it. I'm probably not competent to explain it, but it doesn't mean non-Catholics all go to Hell and I've met few Catholics who ever believed that.

Posted by Thomas R | January 28, 2008 7:43 PM

Thomas R.,

i think i recall reading somewhere that some Christians believe that St. John the Baptist appears to all who have no heard the gospel, at the moment of death, and preaches to them so they can be saved.

Posted by Hector | January 28, 2008 10:13 PM

Hector reports: "i think i recall reading somewhere that some Christians believe that St. John the Baptist appears to all who have no heard the gospel, at the moment of death, and preaches to them so they can be saved."

John the Baptist? Are you sure? I heard it was Papa Smurf.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 11:52 PM

Moe,

Exactly what of substance was added by your last comment?

Posted by Hector | January 29, 2008 12:29 AM

Hector asks: "Moe,

Exactly what of substance was added by your last comment?"

Nothing - which ties it with your odd little fantasy about John the Baptist, post-mortem evangelist! And some say Mormons have odd beliefs...

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 29, 2008 1:23 AM

Moe,

I didn't make up the thing about St. John the Baptist, it's a tradition believed by some Christians. Also check out the legends of Riphaeus and the Emperor Trajan. Anyway, saints can appear to whomever they choose, can they not?

Posted by Hector | January 29, 2008 9:31 AM

Hector replies: "I didn't make up the thing about St. John the Baptist, it's a tradition believed by some Christians. Also check out the legends of Riphaeus and the Emperor Trajan. Anyway, saints can appear to whomever they choose, can they not?"

You mean "it's a thing some Christians made up and that other Christians believe." There, I fixed it for you.

I look forward to a bunch of saints "appearing" on the 50 yard line during the Super Bowl halftime show this weekend. Should be a blast.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 29, 2008 11:17 AM

Comments (79)

Today's Headlines From The Atlantic

VOICES

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Categories

A Movement That Can (And Cannot) Compromise

Not So Wonderful Now