Ex nihilo: fides

I hope I got that Latin right: out of atheism, Jennifer Fullwiler both receives that wonderful gift, faith.

Fad atheism and where's the debate?

Funny, but it does present a challenge. Only one thing to do: test all things, hold fast to what is good. Maybe they don't want to go beyond the entertaining polemics, but we can't stoop to that level. Of course, when testing all things, we do need to be prudent and prepared.
[Thanks to Patrick Madrid for this one.]

Did Darwin kill God?

Sentire Cum Ecclesia blogger David writes about the so entitled interestingly balanced and informative (I though) tele-investigation documentary from (gasp) ABC. The video was still on the ABC website over the past hour or so. It's not bad at all.

When Talking Beasts.. Stop

In "The Magician's Nephew", Aslan gives a simple warning to the newly born Talking Beasts of Narnia: that they should not go back to the ways of beasts lest they cease to be Talking Beasts.

I was reminded of that in Catherine Deveny's article in The Age where she talks about having shed her faith (sandwiched between layers of exaggerated sarcasm and insults for Catholics and Catholicism). Ms. Deveny at some essay months ago casually mentioned that she was Catholic. Now it's clear: she was Catholic, but she became an atheist years ago. That liberating feeling she describes is indeed a form of freedom, but from what? Sadly, she may not have given that much thought.

The Golden Compass: masking a menace

The problem with the movie "The Golden Compass" is that it serves intentionally as an attraction to draw in potential readers for Philip Pullman's trilogy, "His Dark Materials." Why is this a problem? Because that trilogy is a deliberate and rather serious attack on Christianity. But so was the Da Vinci Code, so what's the problem here? The problem is that both the movie and the books are aimed at children at around 12 years of age. This is insidious enough that even the USCCB (bishop's conference in the US) has been deceived to the extent that their film review of this movie does not much mention the dangers of the books.

I think that this excellent post by the American Papist must be read in order to understand the implications.

Faith in the invisible

Yesterday's Gospel reading touched upon the subject of faith, when the disciples ask the Lord to increase their faith. The priest in yesterday's Mass gave us a beautiful story about a man who carried on a conversation every day, sometimes twice each day, with an empty chair in front of him. This chair is reserved for the Lord whom he invites to come around each day just so they can talk. This practice was suggested to him by a friend, and the man, who had previously confessed not knowing how to pray, took to it to his deathbed. One day, he calls his daughter to him, kisses her and hugs her, she goes off and comes back an hour later to find him dead, with his head leaning over to rest on the empty chair.

Our priest ended his story with the assertion that "faith is belief in a God whom one cannot see."

I often find myself amazed at the blindness of militant atheists, those who actively preach against the existence of God. On one hand, in their inability to perceive God, they therefore conclude, with full confidence in their rational analysis, that this proves the non-existence of God. Or base it, perhaps, on the inconsistency among different faiths and religions. To them, they cannot believe in a God that they cannot perceive. On the other hand, they have no trouble believing in phenomena in the physical universe -- even when they cannot perceive them either. Who has ever perceived or grasped in their minds the immensity of matter and energy, dark matter, or their origins? Who has ever perceived or grasped in their minds the electro-chemical inner workings of the human brain and the nervous system? There is much in the physical universe that we know to be true despite our inability to either perceive them or truly understand them. Some atheists have had no problem using the term "mystery" for things that they acknowledge to be unknowable at present. And these same people have blasted religious or secular authorities of past centuries who were oh so wrong about the universe and nature after all.

Science is a lot of good things. It is rigorous, it is based on fact, observation, careful analysis, experiments and logical reasoning. But when science is abused, then we have a problem. Science tells us what and, to some extent, the how of certain phenomena, i.e., the sequence of events that culminate in the observed phenomenon. But Science would not be scientific when it steps out of bounds. It cannot answer why because purpose belongs to an entity, and such an entity -- Jesus Christ who claims to be God, thus the only candidate with physical dimensions and interfaces that can be observed and gathered data from -- they reject. The Church -- who claims to be the body of Christ and thus sharing the same opportunity to gather data from -- they also reject.

So they grasp at straws and step out of bounds. They know enough to use the right instruments and observe the right environments and use the appropriate criteria when it comes to their scientific disciplines. But when they talk about faith, and attempt to use inappropriate instruments, environments and criteria -- that's bad science. They start out with misconceptions and the wrong equipment -- is it any wonder that they find it hard to believe?

Against atheism

Thanks for The Catholic Report, I found two thoughtful pieces against atheism today: one written by Peter Hitchens (brother of militant atheist Christopher) and another by Mark Shea.