As I have mentioned in several videos on this channel, I was a militant / “new atheist” for over 10 years. And almost identical to other new atheists, I made it a mission not only to seek out the truth, but to be stridently skeptic when discussing religion with theists. I frequently used the Matt Dillahunty approach of repeatedly asking, “How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?” every time theists made positive claims about their religious beliefs.
I wanted evidence. I wanted crystal clear evidence. I had a field day with answers such as “I know there is a God because I feel Him in my heart.” Or “Just look at the world around us – there has to be a God that created all of this.” Or “All I need is Jesus; he will answer the rest.” Or the mother of all ambiguity for atheists: “I have faith.”
The “I have faith” answer was one of my favorites, as I could easily go in for the kill with a common, new atheist type question: “Is there any belief system that cannot be justified by faith?” The answer was usually, “Hmm..no.” To which I would give my ‘checkmate’ answer: “Then how is faith a path way to truth?” And more often than not, it made theists stumble backwards and then grapple with the question.
I give this example for two reasons: 1.) Since my channel began in January this year, several atheists have stopped by my channel to challenge me on my new Catholic Christian belief. 2.) Of the several atheists who have challenged me, some have accused my former atheist years as being phony; or that I wasn’t truly militant; or if that I were truly atheist, I would never be Christian (or any form of theist) again. (Side note: Notice that all of those statements are, yes, claims.).
Namely, because most new atheists want physical evidence for God’s existence, even despite being presented with rational warrant for God’s existence (for example, St. Thomas Aquinas’s five proofs for God’s existence), I have been further accused of dancing around theism and Christian belief and giving non-answer answers.
Overall, most of the messages I have received have been filled with snarky comments and a barrage of criticisms on a wide array of subjects. For instance, a common technique I’ve seen is to fire at me a mixed bag of questions about the Bible, morality, science versus religion, comparative religion, and philosophy, while somehow expecting me to give a thorough answer to every single question, and with little room to focus on one topic at a time.
However, the purpose of this blog post is not to give a litany of bad experiences I have had when dialoguing with atheists. Rather, because I see that atheists do sometimes come out of the woodwork to challenge me, I am starting a new series called *Comments and Questions for Skeptics*, in which I take a message sent to me and address it as a topic of discussion for all atheists or other types of skeptics who visit this channel.
Today, I am starting with a comment left about my most recent dialogue with my Catholic philosopher / apologist friend, Pat Flynn, about atheism. Below is the full comment, followed by my comments and questions about it. Note that in my response, I would like to explore the topic in more detail. In other words, one effective approach to debating a subject is to walk side-by-side and explore the subject together, rather than go head to head or come out of the gate confrontational.
And though, sure, it is important to disagree when necessary and point out possible fallacious views – *how* we disagree and discuss a topic can make all the difference in understanding each other’s perspective. Even if it leads to both people standing by their original position, we will have hopefully bridged some disconnects along the way, and without playing a cat-and-mouse type game, which is pretty common when atheists and theists debate each other.
But I am not here to play cat-and-mouse. Let me say that again: I am NOT here to play cat-and-mouse. Instead, I very much welcome thoughtful dialogues and real exploration for answers.
With that in order, let’s look at the *questions and comments for atheists* topic for this week: “Catholics versus understanding evolution.”
Here is the original comment
“Been an Atheist for 62++ years … grew up around Catholics and I’ve never encountered one that actually investigated how life began on earth … OH … the pope now believes in evolution, but can’t come to grips that he choose the wrong path through his lifetime … at my age of 72+ I’m beginning to give up on educating theists …”
My answer:
Thanks very much for sharing your perspective! I have some questions and comments for you:
1.) Although you claim you have never encountered any Catholics who have actually investigated how life began on Earth, would you agree that, scores of Catholics, for the past 2000 years, *have* pursued key questions regarding life and the existence of species within it? One of the most famous being Thomas Aquinas? In fact, the list is quite lengthy!
Or how about the many Catholic scholars, just within the past century, who have helped uphold the Catholic Church’s emphasis on balancing faith and reason? Or how about the many Catholic scientists and philosophers, throughout the ages, whose contributions are still a key part of just about all major disciplines in the academic community?
Yes, I too have encountered Catholics who should have a deeper understanding of evolution, as it is quite evident that evolution is a core part of human development (and all life, for that matter). As someone with an education in neuropsychology, which includes a thorough understanding of evolutionary biology, I wish *everyone* well understood the mechanics of evolution.
However, *every person* in this world is not well-informed and/or has preset biases about some subjects. And, unfortunately, it’s why dialogues with atheists can sometimes hit a dead end, as many atheists appear to be so embedded in scientism, they project themselves as know-it-all’s who are waiting for “all those ‘religious people’ to get out the Bronze Age and fast forward to 2021.” Not to suggest you share that exact view with other atheists — yet a passive-aggressive tone about the Christian worldview often indicates a strongly biased assessment of it.
2.) I am not entirely sure what you mean by the “pope now believes in evolution”, as the Church has directly accepted evolution for decades now — including that Gregor Mendel, a 19th century Augustinian Monk, was a key contributor to the theory of evolution. Further, the Church has had numerous, positive influencers / contributors to modern science, dating back to the dawn of it in the 16th century.
That’s not to say the Church hasn’t been difficult about some advancements along the way — however, that doesn’t mean the Church has had an agenda to fight against science or to live in superstition.
In fact, part of the reason why the Church has taken so many lumps for outwardly appearing difficult on some subjects is it doesn’t take any discipline *lightly*. Quite the opposite, in fact. And hence why, for example, whenever the Church receives a claim about a miracle or supernatural experience, it may spend weeks, months, or even years investigating the claim and anything that may or may not corroborate it. The same may go with scientific claims — just as scientists often may spend weeks, months, or even years studying and experimenting on their hypotheses.
3.) In your time as an atheist, have you ever been wrong on anything pertaining to atheism or how the natural world works? In other words, would you agree your walk as an atheist has been an educational one? And would you agree that just because someone has a worldview that may need some correcting or updating, it doesn’t mean the core view is false?
For instance, even the theory of evolution has, you know, *evolved* within the past 200 years — yet we still accept evolution as fact, correct? Therefore, shouldn’t the Catholic Church get its own latitude with being mistaken in the past, yet also evolving so that it maintains a balance of faith and reason? Pope John Paul II even wrote an encyclical about it: “Fides et Ratio” (“Faith and Reason”).
4.) Lastly — and including my own years as a former atheist — I have always respected organizations that, overall, have remained solidly consistent in the information they deliver and the values they uphold. For instance, the Catholic Church — for the 2000 years now — has been teaching the same Gospel, sharing the same essential theology, honoring the same Sacraments, and keeping a very consistent authority the entire time. That is practically a miracle in human social evolution, and as I have mentioned in a couple of my videos.
That said, do we judge an organization on the mistakes of a few, or because some of its adherents are not always as well-informed as they should be? Or do we look at the whole picture and see how the core tenets have guided the organization, and whether it has been largely consistent throughout its lifespan?
Yes, it’s easy to throw stones at some of the gaffs the Church has made in the past — but is also easy to see the overwhelming proof of its positive consistency these past 2000 years.