So I've spent a good five posts talking about Dawkins and what are, for the most part, very common arguments by athiests against the existence of God. At some points, I was a little ascerbic, but I hope I didn't come off uncharitably. My point in reaidng The God Delusion was to prepare myself to provide a defense of both the philosophical support for the existence of God as well as support for theological propositions concerning the Catholic faith.
When it comes down to it, though, few people will come to the Catholic faith because of a well-formed argument concerning God's existence. They might accept it as true, but knowing the truth and embracing it are two different things. As a few other local theology nerds have reminded me in the past, converts are not won by reason but by love. And as Paul mentioned, without that, my rantings are simply a clanging gong.
I'm also reminded of a song from Camelot: "How to Handle a Woman." As Arthur dealt with Guenivere, we have to deal with those with whom we disagree. We can be disagreeable ourselves, or we can do what comes hardest but is ultimately the only answer. We just love them. We love them in the midst of conflict. We love them to the mat, if need be. But we love them nonetheless. Anything else is un-Christian.
6 comments:
Converts are not won by reason but by love
I used to wonder if anyone ever converted because of Thomas' proofs, but I have since found three who were converted by Thomas' proof. My brief experience is leaning me in the direction to disagree with the assertion above in part, and assert that maybe a better understanding is gained by:
1. no one comes to Me, unless the Father beckons.
and
2. all things work to good, for those who love God.
Now God is Love, and God is Truth, He is also the Way, and being One Way, He seems to delight in as many paths are there are men to trod them. Ven Louis of Granada in the Summa of the Christian Life, warns of being blinded by our path, and failing to see the other paths within the way.
Seeds are planted, watered, tended, but someone else makes them grow.
Reason can prepare the ground so that someone is more susceptible (as it did for me) or even that one can accept God's existence and even many propeties about God. But I don't think that is a true conversion experience. While knowing someone is a prelude to loving someone, it is not the same as loving someone. So I guess it's the love itself that makes the conversion experience.
Bill,
lets take your thought a little further:
While knowing someone is a prelude to loving someone
there is an old expression, "to know you is to love you."
consider Anselm's analogy, that the Father's self knowledge is the person of the Son, and the result of this mutual knowledge between persons is love, which is the Holy Spirit.
Certainly one can know what one does not love, but can one love another, whom one does not know? anyway, I think B16 pegs it with the difference between "informative" and "performative" knowledge.
Elisabeth Leseur "loved" her husband to the end, accepting the suffering he caused her, uniting it with the suffering of Jesus, for the intention of his conversion. it wasn't until after her death, and he read her diary, that he was 'converted' because he understood then what he did not understand before.
Love poured out liberally, (Jesus on the cross) converted very few on the spot (centurion was the exception), but preaching did, after the fact.
They go together. Remember, Paul converted Asia, preaching "nothing but Christ, and him crucified."
As an atheist who happened upon this site (truly) by accident, I'm shocked and somewhat disgusted by your desire to convert people like me. The plain truth of it is that my not believing in any sort of higher spiritual power is none of your business anymore than your faith is mine. If you worried more about improving yourselves than fattening your flock, the world would truly be a better place.
Just for the record, I'm a pacifist, atheist vegetarian who practices non-violence to all living things.
Well, Edward, my desire has little to do with fattening the flock but for your eternal (rather than temporal) happiness. That's simply an obligation of my faith. At the same time, you have the choice to do what you will, and I certainly wouldn't believe in coercing you (even if that were possible). Faith isn't something that you can force on someone. If you truly can't accept a higher spiritual power, I am not in a position to dispute the matter.
As far as improving myself, well, that will always be a work in progress, and my hope for others is not in spite of that faith but because of it. I want what's best for me, for my family, and for everyone. I believe that is a life with God. If I refused to share that with people, that would make me more selfish and self-centered rather than less—hardly an improvement.
Oh, one last point as well...
The point of the post was that we might have to argue to defend our position, but that our job is not to convince you of anything. Only God can give you faith, and only you can accept it. However, our job as Christians is to love you nonetheless, even in disagreement. And if we truly love you, we don't look down our noses and think we're somehow better. That's where many of us need to work.
I'm a former agnostic and vegetarian myself (although I've never qualified as a pacifist as I believe in using violence for self defense and defense of others). I came to reconcile myself against the fitness of vegetarian diet based on the clear needs of my body and the clear example of the natural order.
Post a Comment