Farewell

Posted on July 28, 2011 by neece

Neece says:

Hello Gentle Readers.

Unfortunately, this is our goodbye post. Due to life circumstances beyond my control, I am unable to continue with An Atheist and A Catholic. It’s been an interesting journey, hasn’t it? What have we learned from this experience? Hopefully we are all walking away with a glimpse at our common humanity. We will never agree on the issue of God, but we are all human beings with feelings, lives, thoughts and emotions.

While we don’t have to respect the beliefs of the other side, it is good to be courteous and it helps to be compassionate. It also helps to just listen. We have opened our horizons to see how the other half thinks. This is wonderful!

Also, I hope we’ve learned that defining our words is crucial. If I use one definition of faith and you use something completely different, we can’t communicate clearly. And communication is so vital. Even if we disagree, we have to share this world, so we might as well get along as best we can.

It has definitely been eye-opening. Thank you all so much for sharing our journey, especially those of you who commented. You really added to the discussion and let us get to know you. I will still be keeping up my personal blog, Heaving Dead Cats, which is about skepticism, atheism, science and other things that make us think.

Thanks again. Take good care of yourselves and try to at least listen to understand when you disagree.

 

Roxane says:

If my record-keeping is correct, this is the 16th post of An Atheist and a Catholic. It is also the last.

Our blog, inspired by four months of private discussion through email, has been an honest effort to explore our respective viewpoints as an Atheist (Neece) and Catholic (Me). Though my hope was that we could make it a year, real life must take precedence. Just before our previous post on morality went live, Neece requested we end our efforts in order to focus on other obligations, so I want to honor that. I obviously can’t continue such an effort without my co-founder, whose perspective is imperative for the continuation of this blog.

One interesting outcome of our project is that I’ve come to realize how vital words and their definitions are when entering into this type of discussion. Often, when our views collided and common ground proved hard to find, it seemed due to disagreement over the words we were using to describe our position, and the visuals and ideas we have attached to those words, more than anything. We were speaking different languages in a sense.

But there’s good news, too. Through the process, we also discovered our common humanity bringing us to similar conclusions. Perhaps in the end we must concede that even while a full coming-together is impossible, all is not lost. I hope that our search for the humanity in one another will continue, and that though we may in the end agree to disagree, perhaps we will do so with a renewed understanding of our shared humanity, and in a general sense, shared goals.

I’m satisfied knowing we achieved moments of understanding that would have been impossible prior to the conversation. And on a personal level, I have truly enjoyed the process of starting a blog with someone halfway across the country; someone who, despite having a starkly opposed worldview from mine, is a lot like me in many ways. Coming up with a vision, troubleshooting ways to resolve difficulties, and staying in touch weekly to think up our next post has been a joy. And I thank you, dear reader, for coming along for the ride and contributing to the discussion.

I recently read an essay on empathy by Sister Frances Horner, a Carmelite nun from Baltimore, who, borrowing from the writings of St. Edith Stein, brilliantly articulated the concept of empathy. In order for empathy to happen, she said, we must “set aside ourselves and try to encounter the world of the other person as she/he does; not how I would feel in your place, but how you yourself feel in the face of the situation, given your unique life experience, psychology, physical makeup, talents and shortcomings.” The empathic experience is not one of judging or agreeing/disagreeing, she added, but an experience of comprehension. “After I allow myself to encounter the other’s experience in this way, I can ‘explain’ it and return to an object of my own consciousness.” Empathy, she concluded, involves both a going-out of self and a remaining in self. (The Sword, Vol. 71, p. 107)

I believe true empathy, as Sister Frances describes it, did transpire here, even if only for fleeting moments. I know it has happened in my private exchanges with Neece. And brief as our run has been, I believe that an honest discussion is always worthy of having taken place.

I’m also gratified in having “met” you, readers, and hearing both from the atheist community and from my fellow community of Christians. Thank you for taking time to stop by and share your perspective on our topics. I invite you to visit my personal blogs, Peace Garden Writer and Peace Garden Mama, particularly on Fridays when I talk about faith.

God bless and peace be with you!

Posted in Farewell | Tagged | Comments Off

Our Views on Morality

Posted on July 21, 2011 by neece

Roxane says:

An ordered world requires morality. Otherwise we are left with a Lord of the Flies scenario. But what is the source of morality? And does an objective moral truth exist?

In short, yes to the latter, and God to the former.

If there is no objective moral truth, we are left creating our own subjective moral code. The problem with this is that one individual’s subjective reality will inevitably bump into another in time, and then we have a problem.

For example, without objective moral truth, each person determines for herself what is moral and what is not. So even if I believe that stealing is wrong, my neighbor might well decide he likes my car and that it’s acceptable to steal it. If morality is subjective, I have no grounds to argue that a wrong has been committed when I wake up in the morning and find that my vehicle has disappeared (and that my neighbor is driving it). Even if I deem stealing to be wrong, since my neighbor disagrees (and morality is relative), I have no viable recourse.

Devising our own moral truth leads to disorder. It’s a nice idea but cannot hold up under the weight of reality. Eventually, our moral castle will be invaded. One need only think of World War II to realize that this approach is not only unreasonable but downright dangerous.

There must be certain things all human beings can agree are either wrong or right. But what is the source of objective moral truth?

The believer has a ready and reasonable explanation, pointing to the source of all life as the source also of objective morality. God, who set the world in motion, is the ultimate architect of order. The most easily accessible source for finding this moral truth is Scripture, where it has been laid out most directly in the Ten Commandments. Out of love, God wanted us to know how to live rightly. All of the right morals we see being lived out today have their base in these commandments.

Even the non-believer who is being honest must logically conclude that without some kind of external moral compass, we are back to having our vehicles stolen without any recourse, or risking someone like Hitler providing our moral base.

Would you rather have a loving, intelligent Creator determine your morality, or someone who believes himself to be all-knowing? No one but God is equipped to devise a moral code by which we can all peacefully live. So where, then, does the atheist go for his or her moral code? If we say “within herself,” we are back to the dilemma presented at the beginning.

For a disturbing look at what can happen when humans play God, watch this video. It features the man who is supposedly the smartest in the world. At one point, he speaks of a “benign form of eugenics” as a solution to the “population problem,” as well as other frightening prescriptions for fixing the world’s ills based on his high intelligence.

~

Neece Says:

What is morality? A sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (ie., according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.).

Where does morality come from? I’m no expert, but from what I gather of recent research, it seems that morality is hard-wired into us through evolution. I’ve read two books in the past year that really helped me. One is The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary Edition by Richard Dawkins [1], and the other is The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris [2]. Both were fascinating. The Selfish Gene is more about altruism but is relevant to the topic.

Before I read those books, I sort of thought that morality was relative. In other words, if a tribesman in the Amazon ignores a woman in need of help while she gives birth, and leaves the woman to die, it can be easy to say, “that tribe has a different culture and it’s appropriate to let the woman die rather than try to help her.” (scenario from Don’t Sleep There Are Snakes by Daniel Everett [3]). I don’t like it but they are different than me so how can I tell them they have to have the same morals as me?

But then I read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. This was very helpful as I realized that there is an alternative to moral relativism. There I learned that science can help inform us on the well-being of conscious creatures. Let’s talk just about humans here, but of course, there are other animals that have more consciousness than say, a fish, so they should be considered (pets, livestock, primates, dolphins, elephants, etc).

Science helping us with morality is just really starting to be acknowledged, even though it’s not a new concept. We’ll see how it takes off. But research is fascinating in this area. Basically it all comes down to this: Does an action improve well-being or cause harm? (and this can be measured through research and science, ie., brain scans, etc)

So now when I look at women wearing burkas, for example, I know that it is morally wrong to make women wear cloth bags to protect them from men. If a woman goes out without a burka in certain countries, she gets stoned. This is harmful and against her well-being. Does it mean that I think we should force women to take off their burkas? No, because that would result in their brutal deaths right now. But it does mean that it’s something that is morally wrong even if we can’t necessarily fix it any time soon.

Where do we get our morals? We get them from our parents, family, peers and society. Then at some point some of us reevaluate what we were taught and come up with our own set of principles. This helps us use our reason. And I think there is also a lot of research that shows that we also have an innate morality that is genetic.

Morals change over time. As recently as 200 years ago, slavery was condoned, for example (and in some parts of the world it’s still accepted as normal). As societies change and evolve, we improve our morality. So it’s appropriate to reevaluate what you were taught as a child, now that you are a reasoning adult. For instance, my step-father was a racist and told me when I was young that if I ever brought a black man home he’d disown me. Parents, peers and society are not always right. So it’s up to us to find our own way at some point.

  1. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
  2. The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
  3. Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes by Daniel Everett

What is your view of morality? We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in Philosophy, worldview | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

The Importance and Development of Critical Thinking

Posted on July 14, 2011 by neece

Neece Says:

Question Everything

That’s it, in a nutshell. Question everything to learn more, expand your horizons, challenge your current belief system, and sharpen your ability to spot when others (and you) use logical fallacies.

Here’s the definition of Critical Thinking: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.

Basically, it’s a way to think correctly to avoid false arguments and untruths, given all the information available.

Critical thinking is not natural. We have evolved to think heuristically, in “rules of thumb”, because that’s more efficient. While it’s better to err on the side of caution when you’re in the tall grass and you think you’re about to be eaten by a lion, in our modern lives, it often steers us in the wrong direction.

I wasn’t raised to think critically. Most people aren’t. Even if you’re taught to question one aspect of thinking, most people aren’t taught to question Everything. Religion is a perfect example. People might be taught to think logically about math and (hopefully) science, but when it comes to belief in God, logic is discarded in favor of faith, anecdotal evidence and personal emotions.

When I started questioning how the major religions were formed back in human history, I started to see that my original belief system formed in my childhood might be flawed. This came as a shock, but I think everyone needs to do this. But I didn’t really start thinking critically until I embraced skepticism and got rid of a lot of false beliefs in pseudoscience and magical thinking. That was when I took the blinders off.

I’ll be honest with you, I feel like I am not very good at critical thinking, even after years of practice and study. I think I’m much better than I was, but that I could get even better still. I think most people would have to say the same if they were being honest. It’s so easy to use and fall for a logical fallacy (which might be deliberate or accidental). It’s so easy to take things at face value. We all do this all the time. It’s our nature.

Critical thinking is hard work. It can be tiring to constantly question information you receive. People get irritated if you question their logic. It’s not what I’d call great fun. But parsing out facts to get to the actual reality is rewarding, to say the least. And the more you practice it, the more enjoyable it gets.

The great Carl Sagan said, “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” I couldn’t agree more.

Roxane says:

Critical thinking is a natural, complex approach to the world that is innate to the human species and reserved in its fullest sense to humans alone. Though animals also possess the ability to think, none has as advanced reasoning abilities as humans. However, even the human mind has tremendous limitations compared to the vastness of God’s.

As a mother of five children, I have observed many times just how early the propensity toward critical thinking begins. The parent of a typical three-year-old knows well the urgency of a child to have all questions answered. One “Why” isn’t enough; it must be followed by two, three and even four “Whys.” This phase marks the beginning of a lifetime of question and discovery. We should never lose our childlike wonder about the world. God himself has placed this within us; including and ultimately leading to the desire to know Him.

I would argue that the ability to think critically doesn’t necessarily come from a classroom setting or pile of textbooks. Some of my first and best lessons in critical thinking came from my father, who would sit on a stool outside our home on warm summer nights, beer in one hand and cigarette in the other, to contemplate the world. I would happily join him on many of these occasions, though on a smaller stool and with a glass of lemonade instead of beer.

My recollections of specific conversations are fuzzy and few, but from those discussions a lifelong yearning to understand the world was set in motion. In college, this insatiable curiosity was encouraged, but not just through coursework. Conversations with roommates that started late and ended well after dawn proved to be the most invigorating of my critical-thinking sessions during that period.

When, in young adulthood, my curiosity led me to question certain aspects of my childhood faith, I employed my lifelong habit of pursuing answers through study and talking with others who might help lead me to clearer answers. Though I knew this probing might lead me away from the Catholic Church, in time the opposite happened, and I was drawn more fully into it. The Catholic faith had become my own, not just that which my parents had passed down.

Some erroneously believe people of faith leave their brains at the front doors of their churches. Speaking from my own experience, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Just because many of my questions have been answered does not mean there are not more to ask. I will never quit questioning, though the general nature of my questions has changed. I no longer question the Church’s teachings, though I may question certain ways they are applied (or misapplied) by humans within the Church.

It’s important to note that despite my having been brought up in the Catholic faith, my parents never discouraged questions. I was taught from an early age that it was okay to wonder and seek answers to my questions. If they couldn’t be answered right off, the search was on! What a fun and never-ending challenge to try to satisfy one’s curiosity!

I thank God for my insatiable curiosity that has, over time, led me closer to Him. I am in awe over the questions He has placed in my heart, and the ways in which He helps me discover the answers. I am forever grateful for this life He’s given me; this beautiful journey of questions and answers. And I believe that someday, if I live my life on earth with love to the best of my ability, in the next life all knowledge will be within me and others who are in God’s grace. Questions will cease to be necessary. What an amazing thing to ponder and wonder about.

What are your views on critical thinking? We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in understanding, worldview | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Question Quarry: What Makes You Tick?

Posted on July 7, 2011 by neece

We thought we’d answer the question from last week that we had posed to you. What makes us tick? What drives us?

Roxane says:

My short answer to this question of what fuels me is love; love that is manifest most meaningfully in an authentic faith life. The longer answer will take a few more words, however.

It’s easiest for me to explain this in terms of a dinner event in which I’m just one of the many participants. The conversations are moving along on either side of me, but nothing has moved me to actively engage. The boat is docked and still. And then someone brings up the subject of faith and I’m immediately tuned in, listening, waiting a bit for the appropriate opening but eager to share the thoughts within me that have been developing over the course of my life; the thoughts that most assuredly do float my boat.

To me, this is all inseparable from my belief in God, since God both is and manifests love to the fullest extent. Anyone who feels and expresses love is experiencing God. God existed with all that love from the beginning of time (and before it) and because of its abundance, that love spilled over to create the world. But love, by its nature, requires something to “love on.” At its best, love is an exchange, a circular thing. So this spilling-over of love ended in the world’s creation, and from that, human beings as a particularly dear object of God’s love. We are here, then, in large part to find our way back to God, to learn how to love and to choose love eternally. Understanding this makes everything, including life itself, exponentially more meaningful to me.

This is why faith or topics relating to it in some way bring me to life. Love or lack thereof is what either makes the world go ’round or stalls it. The desire to give and receive love is what seems to me at the motivation of almost everything meaningful. Even when it is skewed, such as when one desires an exorbitant amount of money for selfish reasons, this, too, is really as much about the need to be loved as it is the money itself. So to me, anything that leaves out somehow the seeking and sharing of love, which again I find most vibrantly evidenced through my faith life, lacks. It all comes down to love, which was put into our hearts by a God who loved us into being.

Of course, I can’t just live in the clouds or in my head. The beautiful thing about love is that, by its nature, it results in action. Unless love permeates our actions, we cannot claim to be authentic Christians. Sometimes, this can be as menial as paying the bills, making sure my home and life are running smoothly and that my kids have what they need to thrive. But the motivation for even these things circle back again to love. I do these things because I love my family and want to help them feel secure. I benefit by the love and opportunities for growth they bring into my life in turn.

God and love are inseparable, and faith is one way to enter into a dialogue about these things, which is why I get so excited about faith discussions. They enliven my heart and soul and stir me to action. Faith and the love that sets it in motion are worth dying for, and certainly, living for as well.

 

Neece Says:

So what makes me, a curmudgeonly old soulless atheist, get out of bed every day? Well, two things. One is learning new things or learning more about something that I already know a bit about. I can always expand my horizons which is thrilling.

I also like to share what I learn. I love telling friends about interesting science, or showing them pictures I’ve taken of fascinating insects or other things. The other day I was at a waterfall and I took a picture of a rock that just amazed me. It had all these layers in it that must have taken thousands or maybe even a million years to accumulate. It showed so much history all frozen together. Everyone else at the waterfall was walking over the rock, but I looked down to take its picture and share it with others. I’d like to find someone to tell me what all the different layers in the rock are, and what they might tell me about its history. That would be amazing! (If you want to see the rock, let me know, I’d love to share it with you!)

I think one thing that signifies a good life is to learn and grow, to move forward. I don’t really have the means or the inclination to go to college at this stage, but that just means I have to try a little harder to find good information on my own about things that interest me. And there’s always something to learn!

The other thing that drives me is to make the world better than when I got here. Some days are easier than others. It might be as simple as telling my friend today that I really appreciate him, doing some form of volunteerism, helping others in some way, or even just blogging. I consider that reaching out to people too. I don’t have any great expectations for what I do, but if it helps just one person in any small way, then I’ve done a good thing.

So I try to do my part and then some. And I do it just because it’s the right thing to do, just because it makes the world better in some small way. Or because something needs to be done and it might as well be me who does it.

That’s what I’m passionate about. Improving, growing, learning, and helping make the world a better place.

What drives you? What puts a twinkle in your eye?

We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in Question Quarry | Comments Off

Question Quarry: Your Turn Again!

Posted on June 30, 2011 by neece

Hello Gentle Readers!

We’ve both had one of those weeks when we’ve been meeting ourselves running, so we’re giving the floor to you again, and will put on our best listening ears. We’d really love to know…

What makes you tick, get out of bed in the morning, push forward? What is it that motivates you, gives you a life-buzz, pumps you up? What floats your boat? What is your “thing,” the thing that you live for, the cause that makes it all worthwhile?

These are all different ways of saying: what brings meaning to your life? Tell us, we’re all ears!

We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in Question Quarry | Tagged , | Comments Off

Question Quarry 2: Dinner and Friends

Posted on June 23, 2011 by neece

Question Quarry 2: Given the choice of anyone alive in the world, whom would you want as your dinner guest? As your close friend?

Neece says:

My first choice was of of someone who is dead, the great and wonderful Carl Sagan. So I had to keep thinking. Who inspires me and why?

For my dinner guest I’d love to have a long evening of dinner and conversation with Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, ethologist and author. He also held a position as Professor for Public Understanding of Science in Britain. His awards and accolades are numerous.

Biology is my favorite branch of science, so I would be thrilled to converse with him about all manner of living things, evolution and why animals act the way they do.

Yes, he is also an outspoken atheist, but I mainly love his scientific work. He writes very carefully and thoroughly, making things understandable without dumbing anything down, which I greatly appreciate.

I think having dinner with him would be fascinating and enlightening. He seems like such a gentleman, a brilliant scientist and a philosopher.

For my close friend, I would have to choose Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is an astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium, research associate at the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, he’s a science communicator, and hosts NOVA ScienceNOW on PBS, has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, and has written quite a few books. That’s the shortened list of his accomplishments. There are lots of others, including many awards and honors. He’s a great man.

Now, astrophysics isn’t something I have a deep interest in. I follow along with what’s going on in space but not avidly. As I mentioned above, other fields of science interest me more. But Neil is amazing, likeable, charming, a genius, and he cares deeply about sharing science with everyone. He’s so interesting and passionate that just about everything he talks about is riveting.

Dr. Tyson is a “passionate agnostic”, in his words, but that’s not what I love about him. It’s his passion for life, the universe and everything in the cosmos that makes me feel inspired every time I see him talk at an event or see him on NOVA.

I think being friends with Neil would be constantly inspiring, invigorating and rewarding. And yet, I bet he’d also be fun to hang out with at a barbeque with family and friends.

 

Roxane says:

Two weeks ago I might have answered this question differently, but last week, I had the chance to meet someone I’ve been hearing about quite a bit in the past year. Her story has intrigued me, and now, having heard from her in person, I’m even more inspired. Since our encounter was not nearly as long as I would have liked, I would choose this person as my dinner guest so we might continue the conversation we started. Based on the group hug she, my daughter and I had at our parting the other day, I’m fairly certain it would be easy to pick up where we left off, and that we would both really enjoy the discussion.

Her name is Abby Johnson. She’s a fellow mother, a new Catholic (as of this past Easter), and author of the instantly bestselling book, Unplanned. The book is about Abby’s former work as the director of a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, and her decision to leave her position and join the prolife movement after observing an ultrasound-assisted abortion, which included a 13-week-old baby boy fighting for and losing his life.

I realize we are trying to build bridges here and that some might view this as a divisive answer. But it’s also my most honest answer and I’m going to go with honesty. Secondly, I see Abby as a bridge-builder, which is part of the reason she has captivated and inspired me to such a degree. Having met her in person, I also know how genuinely warm and real she is, so I could easily envision her as a dinner guest. She’s already taught me a lot and I’d love to glean more from her experiences. I think she has a lot to share about love, the discovery of truth, and our nation’s great need for healing.

Because Abby has been firmly planted on both sides of this issue at different times, she’s deeply compassionate toward people on both sides. She’s well aware of the fear that brings women into an abortion facility, but recognizes now that erasing the child is never a good and healthy solution, not for the child itself, nor for its parents or society. I would love to talk to her about her ideas on how to best address this crisis and how those of us who uphold life from conception to natural death might channel our energy and resources for the cause. I’m also very curious about her recent conversion to Catholicism. Stories of converts always enliven my faith.

As for whom I’d choose for a close friend, that’s easy: the same close friends I have now. No need to fix what’s not broken. Close friends are fashioned over time so I can’t imagine picking a random famous person to be my buddy when God has blessed me so abundantly with rich friendships already.

Who would you choose and why? We’d love to have your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in Question Quarry | Tagged , | Comments Off

A New Direction!

Posted on June 16, 2011 by roxane s.

Greetings Gentle Readers!

Thanks for your patience as we work behind the scenes on some kinks we’ve run into here on An Atheist and a Catholic. Simply put, we’ve been questioning whether to discontinue our project due to our growing frustration over the direction of some comments. In the end, the united decision is to push forward, but with some new guidelines, which we’ll explain in a bit.

Though we tried from the beginning to be direct about how we want our blog to progress, and have worked hard to define our mission, this is a human endeavor, and as such, it can be very difficult to stay the course. It is so easy, in a moment of fatigue and frustration, to veer in the wrong direction. But when we do, we lose sight of what we’re here to do: build bridges.

Before continuing, it’s important we’re clear and honest about what caused each of us the greatest difficulty.

Roxane says:

For me, I would say the biggest challenge was when I would be asked a question and sensed that it wasn’t intended so much to honestly learn about my view, but to gather ammunition for the other side. Other times, comments, while not outright hostile, seemed to carry an underlying bite to them. The temptation would be to respond in kind (a very human response). In the end, the conversation would move in a negative direction.

Neece says:

I understand that our natural human inclination is to defend our position when we feel it’s misrepresented. That has happened quite a bit here on An Atheist and a Catholic. Considering we have diametrically opposed worldviews, it’s inevitable. The comments we’ve gotten have been, for the most part, civil. But at times they were argumentative and defensive and required copious amounts of energy to process.

The biggest problem I had was that the comments were not at all in line with the goal of this blog, which is to bring people together, to see the common humanity in each other. That’s the point, and every time a comment was debate-like, I felt more frustrated and further from what I wanted to do here.

Tuesday Teasers:

There won’t be any more Tuesday posts. Instead we’ll focus our energy on Thursdays. So you’ll just have to be surprised with what we have in store for you.

Our New System:

In order to prevent an outright dissolution of our efforts here, we’ve come up with what we hope will be a helpful guide for readers regarding how we are interpreting comments. We are calling this the Green-Yellow-Red Traffic Light Comment Response. We will explain what each of these means at the bottom of this post. Our responses to comments of one or the other color will help explain how we’re receiving the comments so you’ll know why we might not, in some cases, choose to respond. As a reader and responder, you also can utilize this system to communicate with us about how you’re interpreting a particular comment.

Explanation of Green-Yellow-Red Traffic Light Comment Response:

Green Light: “It’s a go! Thanks for your diligence in keeping with our mission.”

Yellow Light: “Starting to cross into questionable territory, caution advised,” or “Lack of time for properly responding.”

Red Light: “Oops, wrong direction. Consider rephrasing question or this part of the conversation ends here.”

Note: Not every comment will receive a traffic light response. This will be reserved for times we feel the need to redirect, correct or compliment for the purpose of positive conditioning.

Additional tips for consideration when crafting a comment:

  1. When asking an honest question, just hearing the answer is sometimes the most respectful response. If you’re tempted to follow through with another question that seems to be more of a challenge rather than an honest inquiry, we might have to “yellow light” it. It’s just too easy to slip into attack mode, and it will be interpreted as probing with an ulterior motive.
  2. It’s best to stay away from attacks, even (especially when) they are very subtle. We are all prone to slipping into this, and it’s what we’re trying to adamantly avoid on An Atheist and a Catholic. As such, we are going to be working hard to avoid the same.
  3. Keep in mind that this blog is not meant to convince the other side how ridiculous and wrong they are. Putting on that mindset will surely take us in the wrong place in a hurry. Respectful responses, even when we disagree, should always be the aim. If this feels impossible, restraint from commenting would be the best course.

Finally, please share your thoughts with us. Are you interested in continuing the discussion? Are there any other thoughts you have about how we might make this a blog that is courteous to all sides?

We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in hello | Tagged , , | Comments Off

Thoughtful Thursday: Change in Plans

Posted on June 9, 2011 by neece

Hello Gentle Readers,

We have a change in plans and will not have our regularly scheduled post for you today. We’ll explain more by next Thursday.

Until then, enjoy your week!

Posted in hello | Tagged | Comments Off

Teaser Tuesday: The Shining Jewels

Posted on June 7, 2011 by neece

On Thoughtful Thursday we will write about “The Shining Jewels: What aspects of my worldview are the most compelling?” Think about your worldview so you can also let us know what your Shining Jewel is.

Stay tuned for next week’s topic.

We’d love your comments over at An Atheist and a Catholic.

Posted in Teaser Tuesday | Tagged | Comments Off

Defining God

Posted on June 2, 2011 by neece

We felt that we both needed to define the god that we’re referring to on An Atheist and a Catholic. When someone talks about God what does that mean to you?

Roxane says:

Recently, Neece mentioned she’d written a separate reflection on her personal blog defining God.  After reading it, it occurred to me that we may well be talking about two separate entities when uttering the name God, or the word god as in Neece’s case.

If this were to happen in any other context, the results could be disastrous. Say two people are having an ongoing discussion about a person they think they both know, and one day it occurs to them they each have had someone completely different in mind all along. We all know how quickly misunderstandings can spin out of control. Without a common understanding at the outset, an entire conversation may be set up for failure.

This thought became especially jarring to me with Neece’s recent definition of God. Reading that version, I sadly shook my head. That’s not the God I know.

The god Neece has described to me many times is a mean, power-thirsty god intent on making all of creation miserable. Conversely, the God I have known my entire life is kind, merciful and slow to anger. He wants nothing more than for His beloved children to know Him and spend eternity with Him. Though He cannot prevent every bit of earthly suffering, because doing so would remove the free will true love requires, He is with us at all times to offer comfort and grace in our earthly journeys.

Where do I get my version of God? Apparently from the same source as Neece. So what of our vastly differing versions?

As a Catholic who takes her faith seriously, I’ve been fed a weekly diet of Scripture my whole life. And in all that time of attending Mass, Bible studies and faith-sharing groups, I’ve never gotten the impression that God’s love was less than abundant. I knew from early on that my every action didn’t meet with God’s approval, but in time, came to understand this was for my own good. I’d experienced enough times how not following God’s laws led to my own, self-inflicted pain, and learned that God always has the best interest of His children in mind.

I can’t sway Neece from her “God as monster” image any more than she can convince me the loving God I know doesn’t exist. The one thing I seem to have going for my version is that I am a believer of Him. As a sincere seeker of Christ, I’ve received mercy, tasted grace, and sought and found Truth. The loving God who lives in my heart and everywhere goodness is found is not the fake version but the non-refutable real deal I’ve come to know intimately from the inside, rather than looking in from the outside and making assumptions.

So, we’ve got a problem, and it’s not easily resolved. Should the conversation  stop simply because we can’t agree on who and what God is? Not necessarily. But taking an honest look at this, I realize more clearly our limits.

Through my own reflection here, I’ve been able to identify for myself why this discussion has, at times, been so utterly frustrating for parties on either side of the God question. We are each gazing into the eyes of two different beings, it appears: one, the god of hate, the other, the God of love.

I’m looking forward to reading responses to this post. When you think of God, what or who do you see?

~

Neece says:

As you know, I’m a polyatheist. I don’t believe in any gods. In fact, I’m a naturalist, I don’t believe in the supernatural either. But when I use the word atheist, people immediately think of one deity in particular that I must be referring to.

In many parts of the world, and especially here in America, when we refer to God we’re referring to the Abrahamic god, the god of the bible, Yahweh, Jesus’ dad. Recently on my personal blog, I wrote about this very topic. You can find a link to it below, if you’re interested.

The god of the old testament was:

  • Jealous
  • Angry
  • Murderous
  • Barbaric
  • Vengeful

Here is a list of what most people (I’ve encountered) say about God today:

  • Omnipotent
  • Omniscient
  • Omnipresent
  • Perfect
  • Loving

In the new testament God was much less involved with people. So all we really have to go on is the old testament, and how people see him now. I find those two perspectives to be drastically different. Some of it is similar, but his personality is drastically different. Of course, this makes sense to me because cultures change. What people want and need from God changes over time. God has evolved with humanity.

I clarified something for myself the other day. It really doesn’t matter that I have read the bible and have seen that God was a heinous, murderous, hateful deity. What matters is how people who believe in him identify with him now.

I don’t believe in God so it’s all semantics with me. When someone says “God is Love” or God is all merciful, it tells me about the person, not the supposed deity to which they are referring.

So, what I’ve come to realize is how I define God (the god we’re referring to, the god of Christianity) is really pointless. I might as well start a discussion on the attributes of dragons, the Borg or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be Touched By His Noodly Appendage!) It means the same. If Roxane wants to believe in a god that loves her that’s totally fine by me. I don’t believe in the god of the old testament any more than I see evidence for Roxane’s loving, perfect, highly contradictory god.

I get frustrated when people are then eager to force their beliefs onto others who choose to embrace reason and reality over faith. For an issue like this, I think we should live and let live, as long as no one is hurting anyone else.

My article: Defining the Nature of God

We’d love for you to comment at AtheistCatholic.

Posted in hello | Comments Off