Category Archives: Atheism

CV NEWS FEED // In a recent op-ed published in The Catholic Spirit, Juekun Wen, a recent Catholic convert, shared his journey from the atheism he grew up surrounded by in China to Catholicism in the US.

I became Catholic because I am a seeker of truth, Wen wrote in his June 17 article. God planted wonderful people along my journey in my darkest hour to show me the path of light, leading me toward him.

Describing his upbringing in China, Wen recalled that his family did not practice religion. He did not encounter Christianity until he was 25. I have always been taught that nothing is valid until proven to be true, he wrote. Skepticism was my religion.

However, after finishing his studies at the University of Richmond, and working for a few years as a lab technician, Wen decided he would visit his parents before returning back to the US to attend graduate school at the University of Minnesota.

Then covid happened.

Wen was faced with either having to return to China and potentially be unable to return for graduate school, or remain in the US without a job or place to live.

I was very depressed and anxious and felt that my life had hit rock bottom. Little did I know that the Almighty had his plan for me, even though I was not one of his followers yet, he wrote.

Ultimately, Wen recalled that it was one of his undergraduate professors who came to his aid, and subsequently led him to the Catholic faith.

Upon hearing of Wens circumstance, the professor and his family, who are all Christian, offered to host Wen for as long as he needed. It was during this time that Wen began to learn about Christianity.

Wen later attended the University of Minnesota, where his professor connected him with the family that would later become his sponsors to the Catholic Church, and the future godparents to his child.

Alongside his studies, Wen discovered that the more he learned about God, the more he realized that religion and science are not in conflict.

I came to realize that the analytical method and inquisitive mindset (as my younger self would call it, being skeptical) fostered by science are powerful tools to aid one in understanding and searching for truth, he wrote, adding:

One can say that those are wonderful gifts that our Lord has bestowed upon us, to be able to search for him.

Wen now attends St Mark parish in St Paul, where he lives with his wife Lauren. They are currently expecting their first child.

Looking back now, I feel so blessed and grateful for God to put those people in my life to guide me to him, he concluded: Even when I was skeptical of his existence, God had his way of leading me to the truth and happiness.

Read more from the original source:
A journey from atheism in China to Catholicism in the United States - CatholicVote org

For many deeply religious families, atheism is unfathomable maybe even a ticket to hell.

Atheism can also be interpreted as an insult to their whole way of life and some families go as far as to try to convert non-believers.

So stories like the one youre about to read are not too uncommon.

I met my father in September of last year. I (16m) was 15 at the time and had recently lost my mom to cervical cancer.

My grandparents and two of my aunts did not want to keep taking care of me.

So instead of letting me go to my aunt out of state, they contacted the man who wanted nothing to do with me before and involved a social worker.

This meant I would have to go live with him instead of the aunt I actually knew and who did want me.

It was hard enough losing his mom and not being wanted by other relatives, but then things get worse.

What made it worse is that my father and his wife are very religious and Im not.

I was raised by an atheist mom, had a mostly atheist family and I have no interest in joining or taking part in anything religious.

Unfortunately, my father and his family try taking me to church and also get me baptized. I have refused.

Things got way more tense recently because two of my fathers other kids were questioning me on why I dont pray.

Their efforts became a full-on campaign to convert him and they didnt let up.

They got upset and tried to do all this converting stuff and theyre only middle schoolers for **** sake.

My father tried telling me I shouldnt shoot it down so quickly and he told me to give it a try and I said no.

Then his wife told me I should be grateful for a chance to be saved and Im being very stubborn and should show them respect as my parents to let them guide me into religion.

I told her they are not my parents, they are randos Im forced to live with and I will never take part in their religion ever and they need to accept that because I dont believe in God or anything.

They didnt like my closed mindedness and they were angry I spoke to them with such finality.

AITA?

Heres what people are saying.

I would recommend this, too. Its not right.

A lot of people suggested doing things that Christians stereotypically hate.

It seems so cold and unfair. Im not sure the social worker can do much.

Some people shared how they dealt with their deeply religious families.

It was great to see so many people empowering OP.

Stop trying to manipulate people!

If you liked that story, read this one about grandparents who set up a college fund for their grandkid because his parents wont, but then his parents want to use the money to cover siblings medical expenses.

See the original post here:
His Mom Passes And He's Sent To Live With His Very Religious Dad. Now He's Trying To Convert Him, But He Says ... - Twisted Sifter

By Our Sunday Visitor staff, June 14, 2024

Cardinal Robert Sarah delivered a speech to attendees of a sold-out event June 13 at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he emphasized the dangers of practical atheism, calling it a great temptation in the Church today.

Practical atheism does not deny God or reject God outright, the cardinal said, but it removes God from the center of life. Criticizing the Church in Europe, Cardinal Sarah repeatedly warned of the loss of the sense of the Gospel which has permeated much of daily life in the West.

The temptation has even impacted Church leaders, tempting them to dream of being loved by the world rather than steadfastly opposing it, said the cardinal, who isprefect emeritus of the Holy Sees Congregation (now Dicastery) of Divine Worshipand the Discipline of the Sacraments, and archbishop emeritus of Conakry, Guinea.

More than 350 people attended the lecture, which was sponsored by the California-basedNapa Instituteand theCatholic Information Center, a Washington bookstore and intellectual hub. The lecture was preceded by Mass in the Crypt Church at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was attended by hundreds more, organizers told Our Sunday Visitor.

In his address, Cardinal Sarah examined the contributions of Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis in condemning practical atheism. He urged heightened vigilance against this subtle state of mind, which he dubbed a dangerous disease.

At one point, Cardinal Sarah highlighted the ongoing Synod on Synodality process in particular, questioning whether it genuinely reflects the Holy Spirits guidance.

There are voices at the synod that are not speaking within the sensus fidei, the sense of the faith the cardinal said. He elaborated, Just because someone identifies as Catholic does not mean they are Catholic or have the sensus fidelium. Those voices, Cardinal Sarah said, are leading to confusion and instability.

Cardinal Sarah criticized the idea that the Churchs doctrine could be subject to change based on majority opinion, stating, To move outside the content of faith both in belief and practice is to move outside the faith. He warned that such an approach reduces faith to mere human opinion and leads to a cacophony of voices rather than a unified message.

There are voices at the synod that are not speaking within the sensus fidei, the sense of the faith the cardinal said. He elaborated, Just because someone identifies as Catholic does not mean they are Catholic or have the sensus fidelium.

The cardinal also addressed recent discussions within the Church about the possibility of ordaining women to Holy Orders, naming Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich,the synods relator general, who has expressed openness to womens ordination. Cardinal Sarah reaffirmed Pope Francis clear stance that ordaining women is not possible but noted that confusion persists on this issue.

This is the sort of thing that Catholics should believe is impossible, Cardinal Sarah said, and yet, we have a senior ranking official espousing an ideology that rejects stability of doctrine. He emphasized the importance of maintaining doctrinal stability to prevent further harm to the Church and its members.

The cardinal stressed that the Churchs authority is not based on democratic principles but on the authority of Christ himself, which he willed to pass on to men who (would be) his representatives until his definitive return. To manifest that authority clearly, he echoed Pope Francis repeated calls for bishops and priests to live lives consistent with the Gospel, and to serve as credible witnesses to the faith.

In his concluding remarks, Cardinal Sarah praised the vitality of the Church in the United States, drawing parallels to the youthful and heroic witness of the African Church. The cardinal pointed tothe witness of the African Churchwhich saved the Church from grave error in the wake of that misguided document Fiducia Supplicans, on blessings for people who are in same-sex relationships and other couples in irregular situations.

The cardinal urged the Church in the United States to also be a witness to the global Church, asking Catholics to embrace their responsibility and potential for significant impact.

Imagine what could happen, he said, if America were to become home to an even more vibrant Catholic community.

This article first appeared HERE.

See the article here:
Cardinal Sarah warns against 'practical atheism' even within the Church - CatholicCitizens.org - Catholic Citizens of Illinois

CV NEWS FEED // The United States can be a place of spiritual renewal and growth for the Catholic Church, according to Cardinal Robert Sarah, archbishop emeritus of Conakry, Guinea.

He made his remarks at a talk titled The Catholic Churchs Enduring Answer to the Practical Atheism of Our Age in Washington, D.C. on June 13. The California-based Napa Institute and the D.C.-located Catholic Information Center co-sponsored the sold-out talk at the Catholic University of America, which provided the venue.

Cardinal Sarah, prefect emeritus of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said that in his visits to the U.S., he has found it a place of great importance for the Universal Church. However, he noted, institutions, hospitals, and universities in the country are often Catholic in name only.

He also said the U.S. President, who self-identifies as Catholic, is an example of what Cardinal [Wilton] Gregory recently described as Cafeteria Catholic.

Still, even though the Church community in the US has been lost at the macro level, Cardinal Sarah said, there is much to celebrate about [the Catholic community here in] the United States.

The Catholic Church of the United States is very different from the Church in Europe, he continued. The faith in Europe is dying, and in some place[s], is dead.

He said that many prelates, who are bishops or cardinals, in the West are paralyzed by the idea of opposing the world. They dream of being loved by the world. They have lost the concern of being a sign of a contradiction.

Cardinal Sarah posited that this compromise may be due to material wealth. Poverty, he said, allows for true freedom.

The modern Church, he said, is tempted by practical atheism, which he defined as a loss of the sense of the Gospel, and the centrality of Jesus Christ. Scripture becomes a tool for secular purpose, rather than the call to conversion.

Though practical atheism is a problem that is growing in the other regions of the West, Cardinal Sarah said, I do not think this is widespread among your bishops and priests here in the United States, thanks be to God.

Cardinal Sarah also said that there is a danger that practical atheism poses when applied to moral theology.

How often do we hear from theologians, priests, religious, and even some bishops, or bishops conferences, that we need to adjust our moral theology for considerations that are only human? he asked.

There is an attempt to ignore, if not reject, the traditional approach to moral theology, he continued, saying that official Church documents have defined moral theology very well. If we do, everything becomes conditional and subjective; welcoming everyone means ignoring scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium.

None of the proponents of [this] reject God outright, he continued, but they treat revelation as secondary, or, at least, on equal footing with experiences and modern science. This is how practical atheism works: it does not deny God, but functions as if God is not central.

Cardinal Sarah also warned against divorcing faith from tradition.

According to practical atheism, tradition is not freeing, he said. And yet, it is through our tradition that we more truly know ourselves. We are not isolated beings, unconnected to our past. Our past is what shapes who we are today.

He emphasized that Salvation history is the chief example of this, saying that the faith always echoes back to Adam and Eve, the Old Testament, and ultimately to Jesus Christ, and the Church that Jesus founded.

This is who we are as a Christian people, Cardinal Sarah said, later adding that Christians are people who live within the context of what God created us to be, which has been perceived more deeply over the centuries, but is always connected to the revelation of Christ, who is the same yesterday and today.

Cardinal Sarah also said that the criticism that practical atheism exists in the Church today is not new, and that in 1958, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger criticized European Christians for embracing paganism.

However, what Ratzinger wrote of in 1958 is more apparent now, Cardinal Sarah said, warning against where there is lack of faith within the Church.

Speaking about the Synod on Synodality, Cardinal Sarah continued, There are voices at the synod that are not speaking within the sensus fidei, or the sense of the faith.

Just because someone identifies as Catholic does not mean they are Catholic or have the sensus fidelium, he said, later adding, And it is a great danger to consider all voices legitimate.

He warned against replacing faith with opinion, and said that attempts to change doctrine cause instability within the Church. He pointed out that Synod Prelate General Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich has expressed openness to the possibility of ordaining women priests, which is contrary to doctrine.

Rejecting doctrine implies that faith is something that can be defined by human beings, rather than by God, Cardinal Sarah said: This is not Catholic, and it is a source of great confusion that is harming the Church and the faithful.

Thankfully, Pope Francis has been clear that this is not possible, to ordain priests women, he said. But confusion grows around these questions when the global Synod encourages such considerations. The example of Germany is well-known, but important to remember.

As he concluded, Cardinal Sarah said that the United States is not like Europe.

The faith here is still young and maturing, he continued. This young vitality is a gift to the Church. Just as we saw the African Church, which is also young, provide heroic witness to the faith in the wake of that misguided document, Fiducia Supplicans, and saved the Church from grave error, the Church here in the United States can also be a witness to the rest of the world.

The cultural atheism that has taken over the West does not have to take over this Church here in the United States, he said. You have good episcopal leadership, good, young priests, communities with young, vibrant Catholic families.You must foster the growth of all of this for the sake of your families, but also for the sake of the global Church.

Cardinal Sarah said that both Napa Institue and the Catholic Information Center should be commended for their work, which is vital for the mission of fostering the growth of the Church in the U.S.

America is big and powerful, politically, economically, and culturally, he continued. With this comes great responsibility. Imagine what could happen if America were to become home to even more vibrant Catholic communities? The faith of Europe is dying, or dead. The Church needs to draw life from places like Africa and America, where faith is not dead.

Perhaps it is surprising to some that the United States can be a place of spiritual renewal, but I believe it to be so, Cardinal Sarah said. If Catholics in this country can be a sign of contradiction to your culture, the Holy Spirit will do great things through you.

See the rest here:
Cardinal Sarah says US can be 'place of spiritual renewal,' urges Catholics to reject 'practical atheism' - CatholicVote org

In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus condemns those who (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree. A regular critique of the nominally religious is that they claim to believe in, say, Christianity, but fail to act in accordance with its demanding message of love and compassion. They love the tree, but cant quite swallow the fruit. More recently, however, a strange reverse phenomenon is emerging: a class of thinkers who, unable to rationally assent to the actual truth of Christianity, and yet disillusioned with the politics of new atheism, and fearful of the various religious and pseudo-religious ideas that have filled the vacuum it created, find themselves in the tough spot of being hungry for the fruit but unable to believe in the existence of the tree.

These so-called cultural Christians are appearing in droves: Douglas Murray, Tom Holland (not that one), Konstantin Kisin, Jordan Peterson (depending on what you mean by Christian and cultural and and); even Richard Dawkins the archetypal modern atheist who has done more to confront organised religion than perhaps any other identifiable person in a generation happily adopts this paradoxical moniker for himself.

Paradoxical because, of course, Christianity is more than just an affinity for evensong, disappointment with secular architecture, and suspicion of Islam. St Paul wrote in no uncertain terms to the Corinthians that if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith, and the vague, la carte approach to the religion displayed by the cultural Christian which doesnt seem to care about, much less affirm, the historicity of the extraordinary events of Easter Sunday is the kind of attitude that would see you condemned as heretical by the founders of the orthodox church.

Yet Christianity is experiencing a popular makeover, from an affirmative doctrine of truth-claims to a sort of protective garment to be worn as a practical measure against the equal and opposite destabilising forces of radical political religiosity and cynical nihilism which continue to claw away at the souls of those without a firm spiritual conviction.

In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus condemns those who (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree. A regular critique of the nominally religious is that they claim to believe in, say, Christianity, but fail to act in accordance with its demanding message of love and compassion. They love the tree, but cant quite swallow the fruit. More recently, however, a strange reverse phenomenon is emerging: a class of thinkers who, unable to rationally assent to the actual truth of Christianity, and yet disillusioned with the politics of new atheism, and fearful of the various religious and pseudo-religious ideas that have filled the vacuum it created, find themselves in the tough spot of being hungry for the fruit but unable to believe in the existence of the tree.

These so-called cultural Christians are appearing in droves: Douglas Murray, Tom Holland (not that one), Konstantin Kisin, Jordan Peterson (depending on what you mean by Christian and cultural and and); even Richard Dawkins the archetypal modern atheist who has done more to confront organised religion than perhaps any other identifiable person in a generation happily adopts this paradoxical moniker for himself.

Paradoxical because, of course, Christianity is more than just an affinity for evensong, disappointment with secular architecture, and suspicion of Islam. St Paul wrote in no uncertain terms to the Corinthians that if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith, and the vague, la carte approach to the religion displayed by the cultural Christian which doesnt seem to care about, much less affirm, the historicity of the extraordinary events of Easter Sunday is the kind of attitude that would see you condemned as heretical by the founders of the orthodox church.

Yet Christianity is experiencing a popular makeover, from an affirmative doctrine of truth-claims to a sort of protective garment to be worn as a practical measure against the equal and opposite destabilising forces of radical political religiosity and cynical nihilism which continue to claw away at the souls of those without a firm spiritual conviction.

This metamorphosis of the Christian religion in is many ways indebted to Tom Holland not the actor, though perhaps an actor, in that he seems content to live as if Christianity were true whose Dominion thesis has convinced a not insignificant number of intellectuals that the bulk of our celebrated Western ethics is ultimately the product of Christianity, an ideology which has so successfully embedded itself in our culture that we do not even notice it anymore.

This leads our cultural Christians, often those with a special interest in safeguarding Western civilisation, to cozy up to an ideology that they cant quite adopt without qualification due to their rather inconvenient conviction that it isnt true.

Enter Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Re-enter, I should say, as this brave apostate from Islam won successful prominence as an atheist writer and speaker for many years since the early 2000s, before recently announcing that she had embraced Christianity. Indeed, she had originally been scheduled to participate in that famed discussion in Washington D.C. in 2007 which gave birth to the four horsemen of new atheism Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. So news of the almost fifths conversion was met with widespread surprise, joy, and speculation.

Perhaps the most widely read response came from Dawkins, in an open letter whose first sentence contained a rather less than charitable: Seriously, Ayaan? You, a Christian? You are no more Christian than I am.

Why? Because Hirsi Alis article, while passionate and detailed, suffered from the exclusion of anything resembling an argument for the existence of God, or for the theological supremacy of the Christian religion over others (or even over atheism). Instead, it is a political treatise: it begins with her experiences as a Muslim, touching on 9/11, the Muslim Brotherhood, and antisemitism, before asking: So, what changed? Why do I call myself a Christian now?

She answers: Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces, which she identifies as Russian/Chinese authoritarianism, Islamism, and wokeism. All of which are distinctly political considerations and so hardly serve as a theological defence of Christianity. Then, referring to Tom Holland, she tells us that the story of the West is a civilisation built on the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is to say, She is ticking all the boxes of a merely cultural Christian.

Strangely, then, they could find initial agreement on one point: their being just as Christian as each other.

Yet she later writes, as if anticipating this objection, I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes. Its a promising interjection, which seems to ready us for an apolitical testimony that might justify her exclusion of the cultural in labelling her new Christian identity.

Here, Hirsi Ali begins to describe her personal struggles as an atheist. I have found life without any spiritual solace unendurable, she writes, claiming that the God hole left behind after her deconversion was not filled with reason and intelligent humanism, as atheists like Betrand Russell had predicted, but instead left painfully vacant.

In this nihilistic vacuum, the challenge before us becomes civilisational, she continues. We cant withstand China, Russia and Iran if we cant explain to our populations why it matters that we do. In explaining, then, her reasons for becoming Christian apart from her desire to defeat her political foes, she tells us that she was struggling with a nihilistic vacuum that was insufficient for defeating her political foes. Once again, the motivation seems political.

Thus Richard Dawkins and his assessment, you are no more a Christian than I am. The funny thing is, Ayaan Hirsi Ali endorses this sentiment. Dawkins has, of late, been airing his misgivings about gender theorists and Islamists, and constantly reaffirms his admiration for Christian art, architecture and music. These political and aesthetic preferences inspired her to refer to Dawkins at one point as one of the most Christian people that she knows. Strangely, then, they could find initial agreement on one point: their being just as Christian as each other.

This uneasy equilibrium provided the mise en scne for an eagerly awaited conversation between the two, which took place in Brooklyn last month. Dawkins tells us at one point that he showed up fully prepared to explain to Hirsi Ali why she is not a Christian: The idea, he says, that the Universe has lurking beneath it an intelligence a supernatural intelligence that invented the laws of physics it invented mathematics [] is a stupendous idea (if its true) and to me that simply dwarfs all talk of nobility and morality and comfort and that sort of thing.

He was, therefore, taken quite unawares, as were many of us, when he asked (or rather told) her, You dont believe Jesus rose from the dead, surely? and she confidently replied, I choose to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And that is a matter of choice. This, for Dawkins (as for me), changes the game. While throughout the event she had no hesitation in repeating her political grievances, in New York, she finally addressed the truth claims of Christianity, and appeared to confess a belief in them. I came here prepared to persuade you, Ayaan, youre not a Christian, Dawkins told her, before correcting himself: I think you are a Christian, and being Richard Dawkins he added, and I think Christianity is nonsense.

This extraordinary event began with Hirsi Ali recounting her conversion: I lived for about a decade with intense depression and anxiety self-loathing. I hit rock bottom. I went to a place where I actually didnt want to live anymore but wasnt brave enough to take my own life. Through prayer, she managed to escape that hole. My zest for life is back, she declared to a healthy applause, indicative of the one thing that everyone can agree on: it is wonderful to hear that Ayaan is happy again.

After finishing this personal narrative, she could only look at Dawkins and shrug slightly. The audience laughed, in anticipation of something of a shift in tone. I did think there was something comical about following such a moving story of escape from depression and anxiety with, But do you really think Jesus was born of a virgin? Dawkinss decision to do so, however, can hardly be blamed: as touching as his former colleagues story may be, if he is right that Gods existence is a scientific question, then we should remember that bringing personal narrative into the laboratory is as inappropriate an approach as bringing a microscope into a poetry seminar. It should be no more an insult to say that Hirsi Alis emotional struggles are irrelevant to the question of Gods existence than it would be to say to say that scientific observations are irrelevant to the study of Keats.

As Dawkins himself put it, responding to Hirsi Alis fear that an atheistic universe doesnt offer us any way to connect with each other and the cosmos: Suppose it were true that atheism doesnt offer anything. So what? why should it offer anything? Further applause.

Faith offers you something, obviously. Thats very very very clear, he says at one point. But it doesnt make it true. It doesnt make the existence claims of Christianity true. More clapping. Given that such a claim is hardly extraordinary or controversial, this reception seemed to be less in support of the point, and more of Dawkinss willingness to make it plain.

Yet it is worth remembering that believing something for non-rational reasons is not unusual. Our beliefs are quite often formed by our surrounding environment, rather than some kind of perfect logic and analysis of abstract syllogisms. Most people know this. Hirsi Ali is happy to admit it. You may think it imperfect, but it is not unique to her.

The kind of Christianity adopted by Hirsi Ali goes further in asserting its truth, but not very much further in its justification.

This means that any surge in Christian interest we may notice among our public intellectuals is unlikely to be due to a renewed interest in Biblical scholarship or the figure of the crucified Nazarene. It is instead likely a product of their environment. Cultural Christianity, then, is in many ways a political movement disguised as a religious one, reacting not to arguments for Gods existence, but concerns about the practical shortcomings of atheism and alternative religions. The kind of Christianity adopted by Hirsi Ali goes further in asserting its truth, but not very much further in its justification.

Therefore, those celebrating some alleged resurgence of Christianity ought be cautious: it would certainly be a happy day for them if their favourite intellectuals began discovering a relationship with Jesus, but if they begin converting to Christianity principally as an ideological bulwark, we may witness the return not of a meek and mild community of believers, but of a more strong-armed, aggressive Christianity that has historically been a touch more controversial.

But Ayaan does seem genuinely transformed by her new faith: she looks happy, speaks humbly, and seems genuinely uninterested in point-scoring or winning any arguments. It troubles me not at all to admit that I found myself applauding her more than Richard Dawkins. It transpired in Brooklyn that her conversion, which at first appeared mostly political, was more a result of her personal battle with nihilism. This is hardly going to convince anybody else to become Christian, but such personal experience isnt ever supposed to.

Atheists are often told that they are plagued with a God-shaped hole. Hirsi Ali appears to have developed for herself a hole-shaped God. But despite the probability of at least an element of motivated reasoning in this conversion, Im genuinely happy for her. We should keep in mind, too, as her story evolves, that our ideas are the most unclear to us when they are new, and Ayaan is a new Christian. While we are all trying to work out what she really believes, she is probably trying to work out the same thing. She, however, has the unusual courage to do it out loud.

Read more:
The trouble with political Christianity - UnHerd

Richard Dawkins, one of the worlds foremost atheists who has spent much of his career advocating his atheism and ridiculing anyone who disagrees, apparently has some regrets.

In an interview this weekend, Dawkins admitted he is concerned about the decline of Christianity in the Western world and even described himself as a cultural Christian.

I do think that we are culturally a Christian country, Dawkins told Leading Britains Conversation, a British talk-radio station. I call myself a cultural Christian. Im not a believer. And so you know, I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. If we substituted [Christianity] with any alternative religion, that would be truly dreadful.

Believers and nonbelievers alike would be forgiven for laughing off Dawkinss concerns. This is, after all, the man who, in a book called The God Delusion, argued not only that God does not exist but that if he did, he should be considered a sadomasochist and megalomaniac. This is also the man who encouraged his fellow atheists to ridicule and show contempt for people of faith and their doctrines, the same man who claimed it is worse to teach children to believe in God than to sexually abuse them.

In other words, there are few people alive who are more responsible for denigrating Christianity and encouraging people to abandon it in droves than Dawkins.

Of course, the decline of Christianity in the West is a serious problem with implications for us all. What Dawkins has realized, perhaps too late, is that the Christian ethos, as he described it, is the very foundation of the laws and institutions upon which Western society depends. Equal justice under the law, the importance of the family unit, the need for community, and the importance of self-control and personal responsibility in a self-governing society all find their basis in biblical teachings. The very concept of human rights is rooted in the belief that all human beings have divine value that no person can take from them.

Strip society of these values by encouraging people to reject their source, and it turns out that what were left with is a soulless, depressed, and increasingly unjust culture. Get rid of God, and everyone starts to think of themselves as their own gods.

Dawkins apparently recognizes the problem with this, which is why he now argues that Christianity in particular is necessary, if only to regulate the publics behavior while, of course, continuing to argue that religion itself is bad. One has to wonder whether such an inconsistency requires greater mental gymnastics than simply believing in God.

Regardless, its obvious Dawkins believes he can have the societal benefits that Christianity provides while rejecting its core doctrines. T.S. Eliot once described this mindset aptly: Do you need to be told that even such modest attainments as you can boast in the way of polite society will hardly survive the faith to which they owe their significance?

If Dawkins is willing to admit that the Christian faith offers the best chance at a well-ordered society, the first thing he should ask himself is how he is able to determine which values might make for a well-ordered society in the first place. As C.S. Lewis put it, If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.

The second question he should ask is: Why? Why is this faith the most conducive to a free and just society? Indeed, why are its tenets undeniably linked to human flourishing? Could it be because Christianity is rooted in an unchanging truth about who we are and what we need?

Perhaps Dawkins is on the path toward recognizing this fact and, Lord willing, submitting to it. Far worse have been saved by his grace, including a man who once sanctioned the killing of Christians for sport only to become the greatest defender of the faith. The apostle Pauls testimony is an example for us all even for Dawkins.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

See the original post here:
Richard Dawkins has some regrets - Washington Examiner

A new survey measures views of atheists in the US, with data suggesting that not nearly as many "nones" would also consider themselves "atheist."

A survey undertaken by Pew Research Center in the summer of 2023 has shed some light on the portion of US adults who consider themselves atheist. A previous Pew study reported on by Aleteia found that the number of nones, those who do not identify with any particular religion, has surged in recent years. The new survey, however, suggests that not nearly as many of those who fall into the category of none would also fall into the category of atheist.

According to Pew, only 4% of US adults call themselves atheist, a figure that is twice as high as reported in a 2007 Pew study. In the US, men are slightly more likely to call themselves atheist than women, with 6-in-10 self-proclaiming atheists being male. Furthermore, 7-in-10 respondents who said they were atheist reported being aged 49 years or younger.

About three-quarters of self-identified atheists reported having no belief in God or a higher power. This group fits the traditional definition of atheist: as someone who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. There is, however, a considerable portion of self-identified atheists (23%) who say they do believe in some form of higher power, suggesting that there is some discrepancy among atheists as to what constitutes atheism.

Regardless of their beliefs in a higher power, the vast majority of US atheists (98%) responded that religion is not too or not at all important to their daily lives. Still, 79% of US atheists reported a deep sense of wonder about the universe that drives their thoughts at least a few times per year. Of these, however, only 36% reported this line of thought leading to a sense of peace.

US atheists reported high levels of concern with the role religion plays in society. Ninety-four percent of atheist respondents said that religion causes division and intolerance and 91% believe that religion encourages superstition and illogical thinking. Seventy-three percent said that they felt religion does more harm than good to society, but 2-in-5 (41%) said that it helps society by giving life meaning. A further 33% acknowledged the propensity for religion to encourage people to treat others well.

These concerns about religion in society have led many atheists to stay informed about religion. In a 2019 survey on religious knowledge, atheists tended to be among the best-performing groups, on average answering around 18 of 32 questions correctly. For instance, they were most likely to know that there is no religious test required to hold public office, and 8-in-10 also knew that Easter commemorates the Resurrection of Christ.

Read more findings from the 2023 survey at Pew Research Center.

Continued here:
Pew study paints a picture of the average US atheist - Aleteia

Comedian Rob Schneider believes having a foundation in God can lead to greater happiness and fulfillment andstudiesconsistently back this assertion.

Listen to them on the latestepisodeof Quick Start

In addition to revealing hope and strength found in faith, Schneider also recently told CBN News he finds the atheistic worldview to be so often devoid of hope.

This idea that things just blew up and the universe is things bumping into things, and expanding, and that we, as human beings, are just this freak accident that happened, he said. [This idea] that this empathy, and compassion, and love that we feel is just this accident that happened, and theres no reason for it, and nothing will come of it,and eventually the universe will just be a series of black holes.

Schneider said he finds such arguments uncompelling and uncorroborated.

I would just go, Well, wait a minute. Theres no science behind that,' he said. And that is a bleak, horrible way to go through life.

Watch Schneider explain:

Schneider said the evidence of love, compassion, and empathy we see in other people exists because it comes from God, the ultimate source of these emotions and expressions.

The actor also said hes spent time of late working on a script about the Shroud of Turin, a famous linen cloth some believe bears the image of Jesus; proponents believe the fascinating apparition was infused on the fabric during his resurrection.

Schneider said his movie about the subject is inching closer to being made, and plans to play a Benedictine monk who helps prove the Shroud is legitimate.

While the films future is still uncertain, one fact is undeniable: the project has built up Schneiders faith.

When you dig into the Shroud of Turin, which is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, you realize that it could not have possibly been, as they say, a medieval forgery, he said. What the Shroud of Turin ultimately is is the receipt. Thats why its such an important thing. Its the receipt of the price that was paid by Jesus Christ forgiveness for all of humanity.

He continued, I couldnt work on this and couldnt see this without being so moved by it.

Read more about Schneiders faithhere.

Here is the original post:
'There's No Science Behind That': Actor Rob Schneider Passionately Checkmates 'Bleak' Worldview Within Atheism - CBN.com

By Jeremiah Bannister, One Peter Five, August 19, 2024

Mass of the Ages, Episode I: Discover the Traditional Latin Mass Directed by Cameron OHearn Produced by Jonathan Weiss and Cameron OHearn Director of Photography Thomas Shannon Original Score by Mark Nowakowsk

Click here to support the project

If its true (and it is) that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church, then its fair to say thatthe death of director Cameron OHearns fatheris the seed of the greatest Catholic documentary of the decademaybe even of all time.

Mass of the Agesmay have had humble beginningsafter it wasfunded by a grassroots lay initiativebut I can imagine a moment where the team of young men behind the scenes awoke to the realization that this wasnt an ordinary film. Whether Thomas Shannons awe-inspiring cinematography, Christopher Amodios quintessential color grading, or Mark Nowakowskis sensational score, the movies production had all the mixings of something truly great. And if any doubt remained, it was certainly washed away under wave after wave of priests and bishops, scholars, and laypeople telling the tale of how the Traditional Latin Mass totally transformed their lives.

Of course, much can (and should) be said regarding every jot and tittle of the film, but I was particularly moved bysomething said by Dr. Taylor Marshall. For beyond the saddening statistics concerning the shortage of Catholic priests or the tragic loss of faith among the laity, there was (as Marshall so eloquently said regarding the brilliance of the Blessed Sacrament nestled within the setting of the traditional Roman rite) a kind of diamond in this film. This diamond was cut deep by the Great Lapidary, through which the light of Christ seemed to shine most brightthat being, the Mauss family, the central narrative of the film.

The movie began, symbolically enough, with a well-lit scene proceeding toward the illustrious high altar at the Oratory of St. Francis de Sales in St. Louis, Missouri, followed by a descent through the dimly lit sanctuary of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Littleton, Colorado. The optics were captivating, but then, toward the tail end of the departure, the camera gently glides between rows of candlescandles twinkling alongside the black funeral pall of a casket. I shuddered at the sight, and I worried whether this film wasnt what Id expectedor, maybe more accurately, that it was more than I was prepared to handle. The answer came seconds later, witha somber scene at a cemetery, where a family huddled together in prayer.

It was jolting, and tears flooded my eyes, as I saw at this moment a reflection of my own experience. And while I was yet unsure where all of this would lead, one thing was certain: Mass of the Ages wasnt a film I could watch on my own. It was, asthe aftermath of my daughters death with childhood brain cancer, a family affair, something we were destined to experience together. So I rushed to the family room and told them that I had something I wanted them to see and, more importantly, I told them that I needed them, through to the end by my side.

And it was true, for scene after scene struck so many heartstrings, composing a kind of chorus involving the most bittersweet of memories and emotions. Things wed seen, things wed felt, things wed loved and lost many of themso agonizingly beautiful, but all of themthings wehadto do. The comparisons were endless, too! The father,Michael Mauss, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma, given only 12 months to live. My daughter Sami, at only 10-years-old, was diagnosed with anaplastic astrocytoma, which took her life after a mere 16 months.

There was the story of Michael, shortly after learning of his diagnosis, smiling on a hospital bed, assuring everyone hell do his best and that everything will be fine. This fit the exact description of avideo Sami madefor her supporters shortly after learning she had cancer. And there wasthe tear-jerking scene of Michael and Kristine renewing their wedding vows, which reminded us of the time a priest prayed a blessing over my daughter, whom he lovingly referred to as Fire Toes.

Watching this was almost overwhelming, and everyone was in tears, but it was the aftermath of Michaels death that hit me most profoundly. Like Kristine after the loss of her husband, the death of our daughter left my family in limbo, unsure of what the future held in store. By that time, I was a Catholic turned apostate, adrift in the raging seas of secular atheism, lacking what Kristine calls the solid foundation of tradition. But like Fr. Illo points out later in the film, Theres a lot of questions that kids normally have, and if those are not addressed theyll go somewhere else to find the answers. Andmy kids had some serious questions!

Who built the universe,Papa? What is right and wrong, Papa? Why dont you ever pray, Papa?

I addressed them, of course, but I knew I was wrong, and they knew it too, so they continued, even asking to see what church looked like. I did my darnedest to distract and dissuade them, even going so far as to show a series of videos from popular Protestant denominations, banking on the idea that theyd find it all very laughable and they did. But it wasnt enough, as one of them quickly replied,But are we Catholic, Papa?It was specific, and with names like Athanasius, Ambrose Louis, and Teresa Avila Lucille, it was definitely a God thing.

As an Atheist, I finally conceded to our childrens request for God.So like any parent in the 21st century does, we showed them YouTube videos of different religions: Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, as well as the Novus Ordo rite. But when we showed them a video of the Latin Mass, my barely-catechized children understood that that was the only place they sought to find God. Their decision was unanimous: we would go to Christmas Vigil at the local parish where Ambroses godmother attended and where, unbeknownst to us, the priest who blessed my daughter just so happened to preside.

At one point in the film, Crisis Magazines Editor-in-Chief Eric Sammons says, The first impression [of the Latin Mass] for some people isnt always a positive one because its so different from anything they experiencedthey really just dont know what to think. Thats true for some people. For others, that foreign feeling of something timeless and transcendent, something set apart in (and beyond) space and time, is just what theyre looking for and exactly what they need. Kristine knows this all too well, insisting, The idea of eternity, it smacks them in the middle of the eyes every day. For the Mauss family, its where their dad is. For us, its where Sami lives, always smiling, dancing care- and cancer-free for all eternity. And Kristines right: its not to make everything about death, but this life is not what we were created forand to walk my children into heaven however I can is the number one priority of my life.

Conveniently enough, our journey played out in a way that can be summed up by different quotes from the film. Theres Fr. Illos story of the woman who recognized, through the quiet and humbling lens of the Latin Mass, her desire (and complete lack) of control. TheresFr. Joshua Caswell, SJC, detailing how the goal of the liturgy is not to evangelize but to worship God, and yet, how

So many atheists, Satanists, and other people wander into the church, knowing little to nothing about the Catholic faith, and yet are seemingly drawn to it because theres an experience of something bigger than themselves.

And Dr. Peter Kwasniewskis description of how the prayers at the foot of the altar start us slowly and carefully, preparing us for the ascent up the Holy Mountain, granting us a sense of our sinfulness and

A chance to wake up to what we are doing, to catch up with what were doingin a way, to slow us down [serving as] a period of preparation, a period of transition that takes us from secular life to this timeless domain of the sacred.

I was an atheist, but I experienced God at the Latin Mass.And just the married couple recalling their humorous first experience at a Latin MassWhats crazy is that we came back, we kept goingsuddenly we found ourselves returning every Sunday to the traditional Roman rite. For now, like Kristine, my goal and number one priority from that point onward was to walk my children into heaven however I can is the number one priority of my life, and that

The way I have been able to reorder my life [as a parent] has come from traditional Catholicism it has completely, radically transformed every aspect of our livesit is a liturgy and a way of lifethat breeds incredible peace and freedom its a refuge from this crazy scary world, and its the space where I can just place the cross down for a little bit.

Kristine finishes that line of thought with a question: where would we be without this? To which I echo her answer, I dont know, adding only, in a sea of sorrow, a desert of despair anywhere (and everywhere) but Rome sweet home.

And this is the story of countless souls across the world whose lives have been transformed by their encounter with God in the Mass of the Ages. Pope Francis seems to have largely hinged his recentmotu proprioon the claim that the Latin Mass is tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the holy People of God (Letter Accompanying Traditionis Custodes). From the grassroots funding for the film, to the stories related therein, to our own experience and those of thousands more, this claim of clericalism could not be further from the truth about the liturgy of our forefathers.

The film elevates the Mauss family brilliantly, set in the cinematic Golden Hour, with Kristine standing with her children along the waters edge of a lakeside shore. Whether dusk or dawn, it doesnt matter, for, as had become evident throughout the film, the Mauss family lives, moves, and has their being in the inextinguishable light of an everlasting fire, one that burns brightly in their hearts, shining forth, mysteriously, through the collective twinkle in their smiling eyes for all the world to see. And behind them, almost prophetically, a skyline of heavenly hills, coruscating clouds, and solace, hidden, yet ever-present, distant, but only for a time. And, as it is with faithful Catholics tethered to the Traditional Latin Mass, its saddled on a circuit, providing warmth and light, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, world without end, amen.

Mass of the Agesis a MUST-SEE movie fit for people of all ages. As for me and my family, we give it a resounding 5/5 stars. We are eagerly awaiting the premiere of Episode II which hints at addressing the real history of our liturgical chaos and the crisis in the Church.

Photo credit: provided by the author.

This article first appeared HERE.

See the rest here:
Atheists Find God at the Latin Mass: A Review of Mass of the Ages - CatholicCitizens.org - Catholic Citizens of Illinois

In the time of Elizabeth I of England and Ireland the statesman Francis Bacon published a short essay On Atheism. It is true, he says, that a little philosophy inclineth mans mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth mens minds about to religion.

But atheism is not just intellectually shallow, he thinks; its morally pernicious. They that deny a God destroy mans nobility. Atheism destroys magnanimity and deprives human nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty.

That was in 1597 when atheists were pretty much outliers. But now, we live in an increasingly secular, post-metaphysical age, and significant parts of our populations dont reject religion it just isnt part of their mental landscape. This alarms those believers who think that the moral fabric of society is being destroyed by this loss of religion. Secular humanists, on the other hand, assert that moral standards dont depend on religious belief, and many secularists think that religion itself is pernicious fundamentalist, obscurantist, patriarchal, repressive. This mutual antagonism isnt the only possibility, of course, and fruitful conversation does take place, partners in conversation, listening rather than assuming, seeking common ground.

And there is an intriguing recent phenomenon that has become almost commonplace: Im secular rather than religious but Im also spiritual.' But what could this talk of spirituality mean if it is no longer grounded in religion? Maybe, though, theres something to explore here, possible common ground between (some) believers and (some) non-believers.

The German philosopher Jrgen Habermas once talked of an awareness of what is missing in our post-metaphysical age.Perhaps it is this uneasy awareness that leads to the appeal of spirituality.Well, one of the things that has been missing is fairly straightforward: the solidarity and regular gathering of a community.And human beings are ceremonial animals, as Ludwig Wittgenstein said. Humanist ministers are starting to preside at naming ceremonies, weddings, and funerals.

Surely something else is missing, though. Recall the words of King Lears daughter, Regan, about her father: He hath ever but slenderly known himself. Although secular humanism asserts that we can live well without religious belief, we still need to embrace a language of interiority, inwardness, self-awareness, and self-knowledge. This language is diagnostic, but it is also expressive. There is a poetic of the inner life and its relation to demeanor and conduct; it is agonized, despairing, hopeful, and struggling to overcome delusion, double-mindedness, and self-deception.

This language of spirituality has a history and continues to grow. It is anchored in ancient traditions that made theistic sense of the phenomena, but the phenomena survive the demise of the theistic sense. Moral life does not require religious belief, but it can be informed by the religious traditions. As the British philosopher Mary Midgley once said, Genesis is more nourishing than Dawkins, and she wasnt giving voice to a faith position. One thinks here of Sren Kierkegaards talk of the necessity for what he called subjective thinking, the existing individual, a dimension missed by sticking merely to the facts.

But secular humanism is still associated with Bacons picture of atheism, perhaps because the rejection of belief was thought to entail a rejection of a way of life conformed to Gods commandments that is, the rejection of belief being a kind of infidelity, a refusal of that way of life. But perhaps our deepest human impulses themselves inform this conception of God, human impulses that are not always available to us unless we search them out and break through our collective self-enclosure.

Francis Bacon went on in 1613 to serve as Attorney General under King James I, and just over 400 years later, and on another continent, another Attorney General, William Barr, took up a similar cause. In his book Hatchet Man, the legal commentator Elie Honig said somewhat sourly of Barr that he had railed:

about the evils of secularism, opining that the countrys founders believed that to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, these moral values must rest on authority independent of mens will they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

William Barr is hardly alone in making this kind of assessment and in making this kind of assumption about the role of human will. But I think it is an important error: It abstracts the will from the sensibility that informs it. It is intriguing that Jean-Paul Sartres atheistic existentialism made moral values a product of the human will because they could no longer be thought of as a product of Gods. This proposition lies at the heart of religious criticism of secular humanism, but the issue is also a deeply political aspect of the so-called culture wars.

Barr is obviously right to say that human beings are willful, and it is surely right that we have a prodigious (if not an infinite) capacity to rationalize. But the unreliability of the human will is common ground. The ancients, after all, saw our weakened capacity for virtue along a trajectory from moral turpitude to slow moral improvement, from wanton indifference (akolasia) through weakness of will (akrasia), to self-control (enkrateia), and to the ideal of temperance (sphrosun), in which moral action flows from a person without inner resistance.

But something else is going on here, which is why I mentioned Sartres popular thought that we choose our values.Barrs conservative position seems to be that it must be the case that if moral values dont rest on a transcendent authority independent of the human will, then they must be thought to rest upon this human will with its infinite capacity to rationalize, and the inevitable outcome is precisely systematic rationalization, permissiveness, promiscuity, relativism, and moral instability. Even in the case of apparently shared values, their authority for a secularist must lie in the human will. For the believer, on the other hand, their authority lies in the divine will, the will of the transcendent Supreme Being. If the human will is so wayward, fickle, and unstable, then thats not much of an authority; at least religious people know when they are sinning, whereas the secularist has, allegedly, lost any secure sense of their own sinfulness.

But why are we talking about authority here at all? And why, specifically, of the (weak) authority of the wayward human will? Talk of authority belongs to a language of commandments, imperatives, prohibitions, and requirements. But they relate more readily to what we do rather than to our dispositions. As to our dispositions, human beings are frequently cruel, vindictive, and ruthless in the pursuit of their interests, and these dispositions are only sometimes tempered by quite different dispositions of solidarity, sympathy, compassion, benevolence, cooperativeness, and, to recall Bacon, magnanimity. Autocrats and their admirers tend to treat the latter as weaknesses. The rest of us, however, are merely conflicted, and if we feel remorse, it is not because we have broken a rule but because we have done someone harm.

One possible theology conceives a good God as creating human beings with an innate capacity for goodness, their constant and willful straying from which is represented by the myth of the Fall. Believers will not be happy with the idea that this conception of the Supreme Being is a projection of our own liberated impulses and dispositions, nor that imperatives about behavior are attempts to recall us to our own stifled dispositions. But whether we are believers or non-believers, the phenomena remain roughly the same, and spirituality includes a methodology of moral renewal. Moral values naturally dissolve into patterns of disposition, demeanor, and conduct. We are so formed that we are motivated by considerations we might summarize as a natural ethic of care. As the American poet Stephen Crane wrote:

The voice of God whispers in the heart So softly That the soul pauses, Making no noise, And strives for these melodies, Distant, sighing, like faintest breath, And all the being is still to hear.

There is a Buddhist echo in these final lines. We have to still the clamor of greed, hatred, and delusion if we are to hear and then see the world as it were for the first time. Perhaps Cranes stillness is precisely the grace of nature that is a condition of hearing our own inner voice protesting against our own hardness of heart. Francis Bacon said that atheism depriveth human nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty. But maybe it has nothing to do with whether you are a believer or not: The long discipline of learning to listen, both to oneself and to others,may release a passion for justice and a care for our suffocating planet. This is ground, beyond the fray of the culture wars, on which believers and non-believers can stand together.

View original post here:
Is atheism destroying the moral fabric of society? - Big Think