Koan #26: The Argument from Atheist Converts

It is often said by the most fervent of Unbelievers that there exist no good arguments for why they should believe and follow the Faith, with all that the Faith entails and espouses. In the spirit of discourse and charity, it is, therefore, desirable to present such arguments, as has been done for millennia, to these most fervently unbelieving of Unbelievers in the hopes of achieving at least some reflection on both sides. And this is just such an attempt, although please note that it is an argument that is both audience specific and done with one’s tongue firmly in his cheek. Yet one must not digress. Thus, this particular argument for the Faith is known as the “Argument from Atheist Converts.” It carries forth as follows: 1. In recent years, and in western culture particularly, a rash of particularly vehement, ardent and evangelically vocal atheists have arisen. 2. These specific Unbelievers often claim that those that hold religious beliefs, and in particular Christianity, are the embodiment of a being that is irrational, emotive, unintelligent, non-“bright”, biased, unscientific, unreasonable, ridiculous, illogical and so forth (a further number of terms could be added, but the point is made). By contrast, the true Unbelievers of this age and culture are the embodiment of a being that is rational, un-emotive, intelligent, “bright”, objective, scientific, reasonable, serious, logical and so forth (again, a further number of terms could be added, but the point is made). 3. With this in mind, it follows that if anyone converts from unbelief to the Faith, then this conversion has great weight, value and assistive/authoritative proof for the strength, validity and worth of arguments made for the Faith, for how could an epitome of rationality, un-emotiveness, intelligence, “brightness”, objectivity, scientific literacy, reasonableness, seriousness and logicalness by converted by anything but the most powerful of arguments and evidence. By contrast, the conversion of a Believer to unbelief is nothing special, powerful or significant, for how could the conversion of an epitome of irrationality, emotiveness, unintelligence, non-“brightness”, bias, scientific illiteracy, unreasonableness, ridiculousness and illogicalness be significant or weight in favour of that particular view. It may, in fact, weaken it as it has been adopted by one with such weak mental facilities. 4. This means, therefore, that either the vehemently arrogant Unbeliever must concede the exponentially greater importance of the conversion of an Unbeliever to belief in contrast to the opposite, and thus the strength of the arguments, facts and evidence that converted such a Unbeliever, or the vehemently arrogant Unbeliever must concede that Unbelievers are not the hyper-rational, totally objective, extremely logical, etc. individuals that the latter so often claimed they are, but are rather subject to the same mental and psychological biases and issues that affect all persons. 5. This then naturally leads to the concession that the Unbelievers claimed objectivity and bias-free-truth-seeking focus in assessing the arguments for the Faith and its entailments are fallacious and unwarranted; they therefore hold no more weight than the Believer’s assessment of the same arguments. 6. Nor can this argument simply be dismissed by the Unbeliever through the claim that the converted Unbeliever simply became irrational and illogical instantly upon conversion, for how can one change so suddenly and momentarily from being the epitome of rationality and reason to its exact and extreme opposite. Such a claim is absurd and just demonstrates the emotional and mental protective barriers that such Unbelievers create for themselves to protect their psyches from the possibility that they are in error. Nor can the Unbeliever claim that the converting Unbeliever was never a “real” Unbeliever—entailing all the traits mentioned above—to begin with, for doing so commits the so-called “No True Scotsman” fallacy, a fallacy with Unbeliever so often use against those of the Faith. Let it therefore be realized, even though it must be granted that many already do, that the Unbeliever in no more rational or objective or logical than the Believer, nor do his assessments of the arguments for the Faith hold any more weight than the Believer’s.

Koan #22: Arguing with Straw

The creation of arguments from little but straw! It is something that every one of the Catholic Faithful must watch for, and must not commit himself, lest he be hypocritical in his quest to bring truth to others. Yet it is also a thing that is often seen in the arguments presented by Unbelievers for their denial of the divine and by non-Catholics for their denial of the Faith. All of these claim to be putting forth arguments of intellectual rigour and strength, but are often, when inspected closely and exactly, simply making arguments of straw. They subtly twist meanings, definitions, words and phrases in the most inconspicuous of manners in order to fallaciously bolster the effectiveness of their argumentation or they argue against the weakest formulation of the Believer’s argument rather than the strongest one. Thus they argue against illusions rather than reality. Let the Believer, then, be both aware and leery of this truth. And let him assess any argument against the Faith or its Lord slowly, methodically and precisely, for fear that if he does not do so, he may be caught unaware of a hidden and fallacious straw, which if missed, would give the argument more weight than it is due.

Koan #8: Was Full Faith Ever There

It is often said by certain previously-faithful Unbelievers that their de-conversion was based on research, argumentation and evidence; that they were committed to the Faith until they, quite simply, could no longer maintain it in the face of what they knew. Now, leaving aside the point that Unbelievers are as subject to the same subjective and emotional biases that they so often accuse Believers of, it is cogent to wonder just how faithful these claimed Believers were to the Faith that they left? Though seemingly insinuating insult, what is actually meant by this latter question is that as the Catholic faith has never claimed that true, firm and preserving belief can be had solely by an exercise of the intellect or through intellectual argumentation, did these individuals actually practice the methods advised by the Faith to develop lasting faith? Indeed, although initial faith can be created solely in the intellect, the Faithful are taught that lasting faith must be cultivated through obedience, good works, prayer, use of the sacraments, charity, an ability to control one’s emotional deviances and so on and so forth. These are things that cannot be done or practiced if one is overwhelmed with pure sensory or philosophical argumentation at the expense such other critical elements. Thus it is a wonder if such things were truly and fully done by the aforementioned Unbelievers’ when they de-converted—and only they and God can know the truth of this—but if they were not, then how can they claim to have had the Faith in the first place? How can they claim to have de-converted when they never truly converted in the first place? For how can one call himself a “convert” or “faithful” when he does not faithfully convert his life in all its elements to the Faith and its prescribed ways? And lest the Unbeliever accuse the Believer of holding an anti-evidentiary stance when he raises the objection articulated here, it must be made clear that this is not the case, for evidence of the sensory and philosophical variety are admittedly necessary for faith, but they are by no means sufficient for it or its maintenance. Indeed, one may think of it in this manner: A man may consciously and intellectually love his wife, but he must also show his love in his actions, respond to her requests, demonstrate his affection in his words to her, sacrifice for her, accept the responsibility and guilt for the errors and faults committed against her, express this love visibly to others, make her a prime priority in his life, practice what he believes about her, spend time and energy on her, love her even when disagreement and disagreeability exists and so on and so forth if his love is to be true, stay strong and actually be love, rather than just a shadowy sentiment of it. A man who does not do such things, but still professes to love his wife in intellect, will soon have a wife who wishes for separation—as God very well might wish of one who “knows” of him, but does not show it or do what He asks—and a mind that wonders if he ever did truly love her to begin with. The Believer, then, can be no different if he is to have a true and lasting love with and for God.

Koan #7: Cross or Crescent or Sickle

Let the choice be clear to all, as history has arguably shown and continues to show, the future will either be one of the Cross or the Crescent or the Sickle. For only the Cross can convert the Crescent or the Sickle; only the Crescent can overwhelm the Sickle and the Cross; and only the Sickle can overtly squash the others. And while the Cross—it cannot be denied—has unjustly crucified some, the Crescent has decapitated many more and the Sickle has exterminated even more than this. Yet it also cannot be denied that the Cross has helped to birth the liberty, freedoms, dignity and strength of the most prosperous nations on earth, which are inseparable from the cultural, philosophical and social influences of that very Cross. Let all, therefore, pick their side carefully and make their choice wisely, for much depends on it and indeed, much will come from it for all men and their children.

Koan #4: "Christianity" Defeated but Catholicism Untouched

While both understandable due to geographical and cultural considerations, yet still strange when considered, is the fact that numerous Unbelievers claim that they have lost their belief due to deficiencies and contradictions within elements of the “Christian” faith as a whole, while at the same time not realizing that what they have done is only discover deficiencies with the theological ideas and doctrines of certain Christian sects. And thus furthermore, they believe they have achieved this personal argumentative success against the totality of what is understood as Christianity without ever having investigated the doctrines, teachings and philosophies of Catholicism, the largest and oldest and original Christian denomination in the world, and yet they still believe that they have defeated Christianity as a whole. But does the boxing contender believe that he has become the champion after only defeating someone who is fifth or sixth in line to the belt, or does he only become champion after have defeated the champion? Of course the latter is true. Why then, do so many Unbelievers act like the former rather than the latter? It is thus a wonder if such an Unbeliever can truly believe that they have defeated Christianity with their partial and denomination specific arguments, or rather should they realize that they only have a right to think that they have defeated Christianity, when they have done nothing of the sort, as Catholicism still stands firm.