Category: Faith

A reader writes:

I have faith. Faith in existence. Faith that does not believe in my self, but believes in the infinite. My self is an illusion: when you meet me, all that you are meeting is every experience that has come before this moment. I cling to my pain, my ideas, my opinions, my love, because that clinging gives me identity — but these things are not mine to have, they are only the residue that is left of my experiences. There is only one person/thing: Consciousness, though it takes many separate forms and travels many separate paths.

Arguing over religion is simply that: arguing. All is true. All is real. All is necessary.

If anything, man needs to disabuse itself of its belief in man. All that you see is time expressing itself. You and everything else are but an expression of time, no more. When you have had all of your experiences, there will be no more, but consciousness will remain.

Don’t fear death, it has already happened. The moment you were born somewhere out there in the mist of the future you were also dying. 

This is the miracle. It is all around us, if only we have eyes to see it.

A reader writes:

In a recent post, you wrote that "Even if you believe, erroneously, that homosexuality is a choice, so, obviously, is religion." I've heard that from a number of people recently, and I'm curious as to whether this is actually true. I certainly don't remember choosing to be an Atheist–as far back as I can trace, it simply fit in with what I believed and how I perceived the world around me. At what age did I choose to be an Atheist? What were my range of choices? Does the fact that both my parents were atheists decrease my choice?

I'm curious as to when you chose to be a Catholic. When you write about your belief and faith, I don't recall getting the sense of you weighing multiple options and choosing the best answer. Often, faith can be very, very difficult.

People ask me what it is like to believe in "nothing," or to not know what comes after death. I can say one thing: it isn't easy. Sometimes I get a panic attack when I find myself imagining what it's like on the other side. Sometimes, when I find myself in troubles, I wish that there was something outside of myself that would arrange the situation so that it would work out in the end. It would be very convenient for me to believe in that. And I don't blame those people who do believe that–because I don't think they chose to. I think they believe in it because, well, they believe in it. I don't believe I have the capacity to simply choose to believe in God, or in Christ's love, the way I can choose what I'm going to wear tomorrow.

That's why I detest the smugness of the New Athiests. Their scorn and anger towards the religious of the world comes from their belief that beliefs are a rational choice, taken in the cold light of day, selected from facts. They think that they chose to be enlightened, and that those who didn't choose the same enlightenment are choosing to be ignorant. 

My point was a narrow one: if you only support hate crime laws for what are called "immutable" characteristics, then you cannot coherently include religion and exclude sexual orientation. Even if religion is not experientially a choice in the first place – like, say, a free-standing choice between gelato flavors – it can certainly be abandoned later. In fact, a huge number of Americans shift their faith attachments over a lifetime – far greater than the minusucle number of people who claim to have been "cured" of homosexuality. The only explanation for the far right's embrace of hate crimes for religion and not sexual orientation is animus.

The broader points my reader makes I take entirely.

A reader writes:

I've dipped in and out of the various discussions you've had on religion and belief but haven't participated because it seems to me the the believers and the nonbelievers can go only so far in finding common ground before a final failure in understanding and agreement. In the end, one either believes or not, and there is no rational path, virtually by definition, toward faith. "I believe" and "I know" are incompatible ways of seeing. The gap between reason and faith is unbridgeable.

Merton's statement seems a model of rationality and moderation, of reasonableness, but it won't hold.

The implication is that doubt is merely a way station, however difficult, toward believing, not an insuperable impediment. What he is saying is that doubt is inconvenient, even painful at times, but it can be overcome and faith established in the end. Faith will never, or almost never, be turned aside by doubt, only delayed. What the statement elides is that doubt, if genuine, must be seen as just as likely to demolish faith as sustain it. If not, then doubt is always a poor second to faith. Faith is able to overcome doubt in a way that Merton's formulation suggests doubt can never overcome faith. The ultimate power of faith is not a conclusion but an underlying assumption of what Merton is saying.

There has been much response to this post, the tone of which I apologized for here. A reader writes:

I’m 55 and have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. Throughout my life I’ve had to listen to smug preachers railing against the evil of atheism, gleefully describing the torment we’d endure after we died.

I was very active at one time in state politics as an employee of the state Democratic Party. I got interested in running for office, but was told unless I was willing to join a church, preferably a Baptist church, I could forget about it. I listened to the U.S. president publicly state that “atheists should not be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” On those few occasions where I let people know about my lack of belief, reactions ranged from supercilious pity (“You poor, pitiful lost soul…I will pray for you that you may see the light.”) to outright hostility.

I was a scoutmaster for 10 years, well liked and appreciated by the kids and their parents. But, the entire time I knew that if a parent ever found out that I was an atheist; I would have been immediately removed. With all that, and more, do you really wonder why I have a general disdain for religion and all the wonderful things it does for our society? Throughout my life, religious belief has been nothing but a sword hanging over my head, ready to fall the moment my lack thereof was discovered. Do you really wonder why I would like to see that sword broken and cast into the forge?

Another reader:

There really are two different types of people in the world: religious and non-religious. Your final sentence about the appeal that 'the Christianity of the Gospels shines like the sun' really means nothing to me. I knocked my head on church doors for years thinking something was wrong with me that I couldn't understand what is meant by statements like that. Finally, just like coming out, I realized that I'm just not that sort of person and to hear of a whole conference of people feeling the same way about God is just like hearing of rumors of gay bars where… everyone is GAY!

Another:

Dennett a atheist bigot? Really? He is as intellectually opposed to fundamentalism as you are. He also speaks of being deeply moved by religious icons and music in very personal terms. He even says that the world is better off with them (contrary to your best buddy Hitchens who in no uncertain terms says religion is a net evil). His primary "atheist" contention is that everyone should be exposed to comparative religion(main beliefs, tenants, etc), beyond that teach children which ever you like. His primary contention is that religions that are truly good, will have no problem being exposed to the beliefs of others. Calling a circular argument/statement (God is god behind god), is not bigotry. Creating an argument that rests upon itself, is intellectually devoid of value.

Another:

First you declare that an atheist meeting is "one big snarky smugfest", but then in the next breath you declare Scientology "The Super Adventure Club."  What makes Christianity any more believable than Scientology?  What is the difference between worshiping Xenu and worshiping a Zombie Carpenter?  What makes Christianity superior to Pagan beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Nordic Beliefs or Hindu Beliefs?  The double standard is disgusting and quite obvious that you only advocate "one" religion and not another.  If you want to be critical of "snarky smug" atheists and in the same breath berate other religions, I suggest you take a good look at your own beliefs and imagine seeing them from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in them, and then tell me who belongs in a super adventure club.

Another:

An atheist pointing out that a sound-byte is intellectually vacuous is not "bigotry". It is not based on hatred, or discrimination, or anything but adherence to the rigorous demands of our own intellect. If the Creationists, ID supporters, and theists in general want to run with the big boys, they should expect to be treated like everyone else on the field. If they say meaningless things, they deserved to be called on them. Why should we be expected to hold our fire? As you were so fond of saying during the Palin farce, deference, please!

Another:

Your complaints about atheists seem to center on their tone – the fact that Dennet is not "really charming" when exposing some vacuous statements masquerading as spirituality. (They're not all rude – your debate with Sam Harris was respectful on both sides). But perhaps they have a right to be a bit rude – they are the most unpopular minority in the USA, with no chance of electoral representation, and they feel as if the country has been overtaken by the Christian right for the last twenty years. Plenty to be rude about, in my opinion.

Dan Falk profiles a Vatican astronomer:

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means that getting to play in the universe – which is really what a scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

A reader writes:

You confused me with

First, I have never looked at the theodicy argument as an argument against faith, or I should say, all faith.  Rather, I have looked at it as an argument against an omnipotent, wholly good God.  It does not necessarily deny God; it denies a particular God and, at most, the supposed rational portions of a faith associated with that particular God. Second, the snippet of Blackford’s argument that you presented noted suffering that “took place long before human beings even existed.”  Yet your dismissal of the argument rested on your belief that “suffering is part of a fallen creation.”  My understanding of the Judeo-Christian “fallen creation” is that it did not occur until – and it occurred only with – the presence of human beings.  Therefore, your rejoinder had nothing to do with Blackford’s argument that you presented your readers.

It seems to me that the theodicy argument is an argument from reason.  Your argument is an argument from faith.  Therein lies the paradox: you cannot counter reason with faith.  As I learned this summer from reading Unamuno, the irresolvable conclusions arrived at through reason and through faith lead us to what he calls the tragic sense of life.

I take the first point. But I do not adhere to the Rick Warren God, intervening like some massive finger coming down from Heaven to push us through every decision we have to make. The idea of everyone's life as divinely "purpose-driven" is horrifying to me.

My notion of a fallen world is related to the fact of mortality, which embraces almost everything on our planet, and causes terrible suffering to animals as well as humans. The difference is that, so far as we know, only humans experience this suffering as a form of alienation; we feel somehow as if we belong elsewhere, as if this mortal coil is not something we simply accept, as if our home was from somewhere else.

This, in my view, is our intimation of God, nascent in the long march of human existence only in the last couple thousand years, and unleashed most amazingly in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Ni ange, ni bete. And from that disjuncture between what we sense of as our actual home and this vale of tears we perforce inhabit, comes our search for God. No reason can end that sense of dislocation because it is some kind of deep sense that is prior to reason.

That's why I do not experience faith as some kind of rational choice or as some kind of irrational leap. I experience it merely as a condition of being human.

(Anonymous portrait of Blaise Pascal.)

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I am an ordained Roman Catholic deacon in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Regarding the response of the psychologist who consulted on annulments, you took issue with one of his points in a summary of typical reasons for an annulment: 5) Lack of appreciation for the full implications of marriage as a life-long, faithful, loving commitment with priority given to spouse and children. You said that was just a euphemism for "I don't want to be married anymore." But if you read it carefully and realize this involves what was happening at the time of the marriage, not now, you'll see that's not what it means.

I was aware of the distinction, but the rule still sounds so vague and subjective that it seems one could easily apply it retroactively. As in, how can an annulment official contradict someone insisting he or she had a "lack of appreciation" in the past? As if on cue, another reader wrote:

Proof of a "lack of appreciation" basically comes down to how strict or expansive the Tribunal in the particular diocese chooses to be.  Does the word of one of the spouses (i.e.: "boy, I had no idea this was going to be 'for life'") suffice?  Or does there need to be some conduct that evinces the "lack of appreciation" (i.e.: early and consistent adultery, refusal to forego birth control, etc.). This is where you'll find the more right-wing diocese cracking down.

Another reader has a harsh but understandable take on the whole issue:

The difference between an annulment and a divorce is that a divorce affirms to the world, and at least any children, that a marriage did exist at one time. It tells them that you (the children) were produced by a couple who loved each other at one time, but that may have changed. An annulment, on the other hand, says ‘no marriage ever existed’, Daddy and Mommy had a “3,000 night stand”, and you are the bastard offspring of something that God did not ever bless. What God has joined together, the Church can pretend never ever happened.

(This says the Church doesn't consider such children illegitimate.) The Catholic deacon reader also broke down some the vagueness of the #5 rule:

"Full implications": Can be someone who has an immature understanding of marriage, and is therefore really unable to responsibly enter into it

"Life-long": If someone enters into marriage with the idea that they'll just try it for a while, that is grounds for annulment.

"Faithful": If one was involved in an affair at the time of the marriage, or open to the idea, or even seeking one, that is grounds for an annulment.

"Loving": Those who see a marriage as an advantageous business or family contract, or who who marries to improve their station in life, or who has an erroneous idea of what a marriage relationship is (e.g., "I'm the husband and she can just do whatever I say"), that marriage could be subject to an annulment.

I respect the good-faith efforts of annulment officials trying to gauge such criteria in the often distant past. But shouldn't the exact same scrutiny be applied to Catholic couples before they tie the knot? Perhaps that is the case, though the answer wasn't obvious after my brief research. Here is the exhaustive list of formal "impediments" compiled on Wikipedia. And here are some FAQs on Catholic marriage.