Feast of
Our Lady of Guadalupe
12 December 2014
Dear St. Francisfolk
I have looked in vain on the internet for a good
response to The American Atheists’ recent anti-Christmas billboard campaign. A
common response is that it is wrong to use children in this manner. That may
well be true but it in no way challenges what the atheists are saying but only
the way they are saying it. I am afraid that I have in the past used the very
same tactic: telling my children that the Democrats are abolishing Christmas
this year. However, my children have two things that atheists seem to lack: an
ability to discern BS, when they hear it and a sense of humor.
Until the heavy hitters of Christian Apologetics
step up to the plate, I will have to try my feeble best to reply to this latest
attempt to abolish Christmas. I understand why they are using billboards and
especially at Christmas; Christmas is a bad time for atheists even in a highly
secularized culture. But I must say that this apes bad religion. Instant
messaging is not the way to impart serious matters to folks. That many
Christians rely on clichés and slogans to win adherents to the faith is not
something we should imitate. Politicians may use this approach to some effect
but when we evangelize we are not trying to get people to vote for us and then maybe
vote for someone else next year. It will not work for atheists any more than it
works for Christians. I want to take atheists seriously just as I want to take
Christians seriously and that is nearly impossible when both parties imagine
that I am the kind of creature who can be convinced by a billboard.
Some folks have counter-charged that atheists
believe in the ‘fairy tale’ of evolution. The difficulty with that is that
evolution whatever else it might be, is not a fairytale. Fairy tales begin ‘once
upon a time’ and involve no real places, people or events. The theory of evolution
does not begin that way and does require real places, people and events. The
Christmas story in St. Luke’s Gospel, the Gospel read on Christmas in
liturgical churches, also does not begin ‘once upon a time' but this way:
In those days a decree
went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was
governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.
From
the very beginning of his gospel Luke insists that he is trying to get the
facts straight:
Inasmuch as many have
undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished
among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having
followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the
things of which you have been informed.
What Luke intended to do was write history based
on evidence. You can say that he was not a very good historian, that he was not
objective, and that he was mistaken about the facts. But you cannot dismiss his
account as a fairy tale, any more than you can dismiss Darwin’s account as
something other than an attempt to give a scientific account of the ‘Origin of
Species’. Darwin too may not have been a very good scientist, may not have been
objective and most would now say certainly he was mistaken about some of the
facts.
It is hard to say what people who see the
billboard might imagine a ‘fairy tale’ to be. It is possible that the fairy
tale angle could backfire on the atheists. Many people rather like and enjoy
fairy tales with damsels in distress, knights in shining armor, dragons, talking
animals, magic wands and all the rest. Hollywood bears this out: most TV shows,
movie, and computer games are reworks of fairy tales.
But what atheists mean by a ‘fairy tale’ is a ‘fantastic
story meant to deceive’. American Atheists President David Silverman has said, “Even
children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don’t want to attend
services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead. Today’s adults
have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed.
It’s OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it’s
definitely OK to tell your children the truth.”
It is my experience that children press their
parents to let them go to Midnight Mass long before the weary parents are
willing to take them. The atheists will say that this is because they have been
duped by their parents. However, it is also true that churched children are
often asked by their unchurched friends if they can go with them to Midnight
Mass. Part of it no doubt is the attraction of being able to stay up late. But
there is more to it: the romanticism of the High Mass, the splendor of the music,
the ancient drama of welcoming not some old codger but a child, not a mythical creature
but a child just like them. I can easily think of church services which are
boring and which I would only attend under duress but that is not the way we worship
around here. It has often happened in the past that the parents want a more
mainstream style of worship and it is the children who say “no way.”
But are churches spewing absurdities or parents
believing lies, wrong about God and not telling their children the truth? This
is the real agenda of the American Atheists: not to protect children from
boring church services but to suggest that people who have faith are lying,
only pretending and believing absurdities. Although you might not know it to
listen to many Christians, faith is not irrational or absurd but based on
science. Sound impossible? “Science” before the natural scientists began to monopolize
the word meant simply “knowledge”. Knowledge can be acquired in different ways:
observation, experience but also rational logical thinking. Faith is not based
on nothing. There are at least two dozen or so arguments for the existence of
God, some more convincing than others. But there are no convincing arguments
against God’s existence. That is why in an earlier atheist campaign in the UK
the sign on the side of the bus said “there probably is no God.”
Faith, writes Dr. Brian Davies, “in much day-to-day
discourse and in much that is written is
what you have when you believe in the existence of God”. But for St. Thomas
Aquinas “the existence of God is not strictly speaking even part of faith . . .
it is what faith presupposes.” Even if you are not able to construct an
argument for God’s existence or even follow one, it is enough for you to know
that it is perfectly reasonable to say that God exists. We cannot prove the
Trinity and the Incarnation, but these doctrines are not based on nothing but
on the reality of God who reliably reveals himself as the Triune God and the Incarnate
Word. We believe all the rest on the basis of the truth that God exists. One of
those awful, mean, nasty medieval theologians, Hugh of St. Victor said that
faith is ‘midway between science and opinion’. More than just a fantasy but
less than a philosophical, mathematical or natural scientific certainty.
In fact Christianity is not the only view of the
world which depends on faith. So does natural science. Natural scientists assume that the world outside
their minds is real and objective and is structured so that we can discover
laws by which to explain what goes on in the world. Scientists do not sit down
first and prove that the world is real. They just trust that it is real. Anyway
you cannot prove scientifically that there is a real world outside your mind.
But you can prove philosophically that there is and indeed Plato and Aristotle proved
that very thing not by using the scientific method but logic.
The atheists tell us instead of going to church
at Christmas “enjoy the time with your family and friends”. This seems to me
the rankest hypocrisy. If you really hold that Christmas is a fairy tale, a
lie, and a deception, you should ignore it entirely, go to work, forget family, friends, the
presents and the food. The atheists think that they are very brave to challenge
the Christian consensus. What would be really brave would be to have nothing to
do with your family and friends at Christmas.
Fr. Allen
5 comments:
"Natural scientists assume that the world is objective." Christians and non, agnostics, atheists all set their alarms for the work day each morning. Has anyone yet "proved" the Uniformity of Nature? ...Thanks for your interesting thoughts. Brent
Thanks for that.
But do you think Chesterton might take a different approach? It's in the fairy tale and the enchantment of things that we begin to discern their reality.
It's the atheist who believes the lie, opting for a two dimensional simulacrum of reality.
As with everything the limo-lib Illuminati left touches, they achieve the exact opposite of their intended result.
Also, we have to question the sincerity of the porcine poster child. It's all very well to smirk greedily after consuming a developing country's share of Christmas pudding, but let's not skip the church that put the feast there in the first place.
Happy Kwanzaa.
Fr
I am of course familiar with the limey C.S.Lewis 'true myth' and Chestertonian 'fairy tale' approach. My own view is that as charming as this may be, it is ultimately just a slight twist on the old tired Cartesian dualism. The ordinary language folks can help us here: when most people use the word 'myth' or fairy tale' that mean something which is not true or real.. We ought to insist on reasoned faith and the historicity of the Gospels. The fairy tale/myth bit causes us to concede to the opposition more than we need concede. Never did much care C.S. Lewis myself -- he was no philosopher. Got thoroughly out shot down by Elizabeth Anscombe, not an atheist but a devout Roman Catholic. Chesteron is a different case because he darn well knew that Christianity is not just a special case fairy tale.
Are you really sure you want to accuse CSL and GKC of Cartesian dualism?
And at the risk of offending all the LGBTQ readers here, we need to take the fairy off the tree and replace it with an angel.
Merry Festivus!
I did not say that Lewis and Chesterton were not good Christians. You can be a good Christian and a Cartesian.Most Christians are these days. In fact Descartes himself was both. Myths and fairy tales can be used to illustrate theology, morality and common sense propositions. I think that was the way Chesterton used this material for the most part. But no one would say that myths and fairy tales are particularly useful for natural science and mathematics (the classical minded would add for philosophy). But many people would say that for religion fairy tales and myths are not only useful but in some sense essential.the unique way in which religion expresses its truths. Sounds like dualism to me. Of course the Christian religion is enchanting but do we mean by saying that it casts a spell on us which gets to believe. What is enchanting (in the sense of attractive) about Christianity is that it is true. I am not dismissing Lewis and Chesterton but asking is their approach the right one to evangelize a secular culture dominated by scientism and solipsism? I think not.
Post a Comment