A DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME (A CATHOLIC) AND A POLISH ATHEIST WHO IS PHD IN BIOLOGY
VINI:are you a catholic? 5 minutes ago avatar
POLISH:No, I am atheist, but I used to be catholic until some 10 years ago. 4 minutes ago avatar
VINI:And what happened? 4 minutes ago avatar
POLISH:Oh it was a fate ;). I was requested by my boss, a university professor to produce a presentation for a joined celebration of Darwin’s evolution theory, organised by Faculties of Theology and Biology (I am a biologist). So I started visiting my colleagues and acquaintances and talking to them on evolution and God, because I did not quite know what I wanted to talk about. One of my friend told me about Dakins, and his book which to her seemed pathetically unconvincing. She even offered to lend me this book. So I read it and found it very convincing. That is to cut a really long story short :) Just now avatar
VINI:Ah, are you a professor of biology? avatar
POLISH:sorry, friends, Dawkins… Now avatar
POLISH:Not a professor, I am a plain doctor (PhD). And my lecture was essentially on the idea that there is no intelligent design in nature, but lots of area for intelligent design in biotechnology :) Just now avatar
POLISH:Actually, I should say that it was around the time when my father had died. So I had to think if I believed I would ever be granted the opportunity to meet him again. And then I felt I did not believe it. Just now avatar POLISH:I hope my somewhat counter-religious views won’t disturb you? Just now avatar
POLISH:There was also another factor. I met at around this time the Jehowa’s witnesses. They seemed very kind, intelligent and dedicated to their mission. After they went away, I thought, would it not be better if these people promoted with the same zeal knowledge of moder physics or biology, rather than Bible… Just now avatar
VINI:Well, I’m here to a cultural exchange. I love to discuss so many subjects, even the people don’t agree with me. My story is a bit curious, maybe. I was birth as a catholic, but in my 13 years I becam an atheist. But, in my 20 years I return to catholicism. And I like Poland justly because it’s a catholic country xD In economics, my father was a teacher of geography and history. It’s a synonymous of to be leftism. But, in my 18 years, I started to study economics by the Institute Mises. Mises is a very famous austrian author. He was very liberal and he’s very famous in Brazil (liberalism now is famous in Brazil due to communism menace). I know a lot of atheist thinkers, but was something curious in them. Rothbard, even being atheist, like so much catholics thinkers. And said that the scholastic was an ancestor of liberal economics. So, I came in contact with so many catholics authors like Saint Thomas Aquinas and I feel in love with them. This an important step for my conversion. avatar
POLISH:Do you ever have any doubts regarding the existence of God? Just now avatar
POLISH:What I liked in Saint Thomas Aquinas were his efforts to deduce or support faith with logic. But his arguments seemed to me extremly unconvincing. Just now avatar
POLISH:After the Jehowa’s witnesses went away I thought it would be worth trying to find such ”missionaries of science”. You could think of establishing a quasi religion by attracting some followers. But of course it is not that easy, and perhaps not worth it. Anyway, I started an experiment, writing a blog, mostly on Sundays. I did have some readers but not any active supporters :) Just now avatar
VINI:I’ll take a bath, I’ll read your messages, and you can keep sending messages, I’ll read of them. Before I go, I like to comment why I’m not a liberal today. I think that Rothbard was exaggerating about the good relationship between liberals and catholics. I came to conclusion that is basically two moral system in the world. The liberal and the classic. In liberal moral system, freedom means that we can decide what is good and what is bad. In the classical philosophy, freedom receives the good and bad for the intelligence. In the first system, freedom chooses what is bad and what is good. In the second system, freedom choose between things that are already defined as good or bad. Do you understand the difference? I choose the second option. The catholic thinking is of this second category. But I said that is the classical philosophy, because Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and so other believe in the same. avatar
POLISH:Well, about this ask, I’ve no doubts about God’s existence. I think that is good proofs about it. And I think that evolution is indifferent regard to this. God is a metaphysical question. Evolution is a biological question. It’s like the biologist try to teach mathematics to a math teacher. avatar POLISH:Yes, I think I can see the difference, only I don’t know why you are more eager to accept choices made by some ancient gurus, rather then working out your own ones. Just now avatar
POLISH:Funny I think mathematics and religion have pretty much in common, unlike natural sciences. That is they are both mental constructs. However, mathematics promotes a very ordered, disciplined way of thinking, quite unlike religon, I am afraid. Now avatar
POLISH:You mentionned Cicero. I love him ;) in contrast to my attitude to Saint Thomas Aquinas. What impressed me greatly was that this Roman thinker seems to be much more modern than many of my fellow-country men. Just now avatar
POLISH:He wrote about soul something to this effect: so you think you will be able to think and experience things after death? But look, there are some people who are not dead at all, they are still alive, but they have their eyes or ears damaged. Can they see or hear? Obviously they cannot without properly functionning sensory organs. And when a body dies, the organs become damaged. So your soul will neither hear, nor see nor (we might add) remember or associate. It will be totally dumb and dark if it will be at all. Why would we the talk of a soul, if it has no concience? Just now avatar
POLISH:You seem to be enjoying your bath now, so I will add one more factor that contributed to my total, though rather recent disbelief in gods. I had a surgery. The bone that we have in the nose (is it nasal septum?) had to be broken away and placed properly, so as to make breathing more efficient. I also succeded in begging the surgeon to remove some ugly pimples from my face. So he had lots of work with me. And you know what, though this surgery took something like an hour, for me it lasted like a blin of an eye. I thought ”it will start soon” and immediately thereafter I heard a nurse saying somewhat impatiently ”please do move to your bed”. My first reaction was ”what about the surgery? Was it cancelled? What happenned?” And she loughed and said it is over already. And I thougt, so there was a guy who broke my bone, placed it in some new place, made a few cuts on my face and made some stiches and I did not feel anything, not darkness or brightness, nothing at all. If there was a terrorist who would destroy that hospital I would just not wake up and I would not even be sorry about it. I would not feel anything. It was my moment of illumination. After all the same must happen when our brain becomes switched off not transiently but for ever :) Just now avatar
POLISH:Vinicius, it is 00:59 here, so I think, I’d rather go to sleep. But if you feel like continuing our philosophical/personal accounts, let’s meet here again tomoroow, O.K.? Or if you wish write your comment now, and I will read it next evening. Thank you for the interesting exchange of concepts and beliefs. See you :) Just now avatar
VINI:Ok, we can continue our conversation tomorrow avatar
VINI:Nice to meet you avatar
VINI:I’ll read and comment your opinions avatar
VINI:Well, curiously, I think that the problem of conciousness played a important role in my conversion. The problem of knowledge had a great importance to me (and it’s connected to problem of the soul, you’ll see). A little example. What is biology? You can put a tissue on microscopic to see its cells. But, you can put the biology in a microscopic? where is the biology? Well, I’d say that biology isn’t in anywhere, because this is a concept, so this is immaterial and immaterial things don’t occupy space. You could reply me: “but the biology isn’t in the brain?”. That is a good question. But, I’ll answer “no”. The nature of knowledge is universal. Biology try to finds laws and general patterns about life. Brain can only contain singular information. It sees only a specific patern and a specific being. If we talk about some Mendel’s laws we don’t see any law, we see only concrete peas and the immaterial concept follows these images. Even some agnostics author like Karl Popper (yes, the famous Popper), John Searle and Bertrand Russel talked about the immateriality of the mind. The knowledge argument is very strong for them. Searle is an live author, and he knows the modern neuroscience. Even knowing the news discoveris of its sciences, he keeps his theory. There is one only argument, but it’s good for we start. And, about the soul? Well, what is the cause of the corruption? Is the matter. If the knowledge is immaterial, some part of our life survives after that. About your argument, curiously I passed for a surgery on my nose too, but before my conversion. Anyway, I think that isn’t a refutation, because our consciousness fatigues the body. It’s reasonable to think that’s some mechanism to disable it when we don’t feed it with images. So, it’s a total impossibility have a soul and it stay “off” sometimes. avatar
VINI:I like very much the philosopher Edward Feser. He’s an ex-atheist too. His PHD is about consciouness, and I read his book about this subject. He has a blog with so many articles. He commented a bit your conversion and the importance of this question. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html avatar
VINI:It isn’t very exactly that Saint Thomas deduces the faith from the logic. Faith is faith, natural reason is natural reason. What he says is that the existence of God isn’t a subject of faith in a proper sense, but is a subject of natural reason. The faith is the infusion of knowledge by God about the necessary truth of our salvation. Another point is that Saint Thomas shows that the faith is a consistent logical system. There isn’t contradictions in it. But that knowledge isn’t deductible.
VINI: Well, I’m accumulating a lot of text. But I’ll comment the Jehova witness question. That’s my last comment before passing my turn. I’m with Aristotle. There are degrees of knowledge. The more is something is immaterial, greater will be this science. And it’s synonymous of universality. What is God for me and for the classical thinkers? Is the greatest science of the world, because He’s the cause of everything. He’s the most universal object of our science. What is the salvation? Knowledge God. What is the condemnation? Is the eternal ignorance. Yes, we profess there’s fire in the hell. But so many saints said things like that: ”even I was in the Hell, you’ll be fine with God were with me”. Why? They are talking about the sensible penalties of the hell, they’re nothing compared to knowledge (or not knowledge) of God. That science fills us with meaning, and we can overcome anything. I would like to talk about the morality too (as a subtopic of what you said). What’s the point of be a great scientist, but be a horrible person? Between a person who believes in flat earth but don’t kill, don’t steal, etc and the guys who’s a scientist, but do all theses things, I think that the guy who’s believe in flat earth is better. I think that point is a particular case of the degrees of science. The moral science is sublime, because it deals with the human person, the most incredible thing in the universe. Planets aren’t so incredible, they’re big, but they’re only big rocks flying in the space. They don’t think about anything.