Apologetics – Page 34

Is Atheism a Religion?

At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.

It certainly can be a surprising claim.

And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand.

But there’s more to the story here.

There is a case to be made that, in a very real sense, atheism is a religion.

A Word About Words

Words mean what people use them to mean. So whether atheism counts as a religion will depend on how you use the term “atheism” and how you use the term “religion.”

There is no single right way or wrong way to use terms. Their boundaries can be drawn differently by different people, and their meanings can change over time.

As a result, I’m not going to be claiming in this piece that there is a single right or wrong way to define our two terms.

In fact, I don’t really care about the terms. What I’m interested in is the reality that the two terms represent.

My claim, therefore, is that the reality of what is commonly called “atheism” has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called “religion.”

The two have so much in common that there is a sense in which atheism can be seen as a religion.

“Are You A Christian?”

A prima facie or “at first glance” case for the claim that atheism can be seen as a religion can be found in the answer an atheist might give to the question “Are you a Christian?”

When presented with this question, an atheist may reply, “No, I’m an atheist.”

On the other hand, if he was instead presented with the question, “Are you a Jew?” he might again reply, “No, I’m an atheist.”

If he had been asked, “Are you a Buddhist?” or “Are you a Muslim?” or “Are you a Hindu?” he might well give the same answer: “No, I am an atheist.”

This suggests that being an atheist is analogous to being a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.

And that, in turn suggests that atheism is analogous to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism.

In other words, atheism, too, can be seen as a religion.

Now let’s ask a question that will let us go deeper into the subject . . .

Why?

Why is it possible to view atheism as a religion?

KEEP READING.

Are We Re-Crucifying Jesus in the Mass?

Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?

Anti-Catholics often charge that Catholics “re-crucify” Jesus through the sacrifice of the Mass.

If we were, that would be a problem, because the Bible repeatedly indicates that Jesus suffered and died “once for all.”

What’s really going on here?

How should we understand the relationship of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross?

Question from a Reader

Some time ago, I got the following question from a reader:

You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass.

I want to say, “No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do).”

At the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after that time?

So my question is: Is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?

There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think the reader is on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.

Last Supper, Crucifixion, Mass Today

To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events:

· The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass)

· The Crucifixion

· Any particular Mass being held today

Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.

The Masses (the first one and contemporary ones) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense.

The Catechism Speaks

KEEP READING.

Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God?

The subject of who has the burden of proof frequently comes up in discussions between Christians and atheists.

Both parties sometimes try to put the burden of proof on the other.

At times, Christians claim that atheists have the burden of proof.

At times, atheists claim that Christians have the burden of proof.

Somewhat surprisingly, both parties are sometimes right . . . and sometimes wrong.

The Burden of Proof

The basic idea of the “burden of proof” is that a particular party has an obligation to provide proof of a claim that is being disputed.

This principle is applied in a variety of settings—in courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, and in debates.

When used rightly, it can help keep discussions on track.

When used wrongly, it can cause discussions to descend into squabbles that cause the discussion to go off track.

So let’s look at the ways the burden of proof is assigned and see how it applies to the existence of God.

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.

Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

Scientific Proof of God’s Existence/Non-Existence?

If someone wanted to claim that the existence of God is scientifically provable then he would need to formulate a testable prediction based on the hypothesis that God exists and then run the test and see if the prediction is fulfilled.

In the same way, if someone wanted to claim that the non-existence of God is scientifically provable then he would need to formulate the same kind of testable prediction, run the test, and see if the prediction is fulfilled.

Either way, the test would need to be well-designed, replicable, etc., etc., for the matter to be considered scientifically proved.

There are difficulties involved in running tests involving a Being who is not detectable by the senses and who may or may not choose to act in ways that are detectable by the senses.

These difficulties have convinced many that it is not easy to use the scientific method to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Some hold that it is simply impossible.

Our point, though, is that the burden of proof falls equally on the one wanting to assert and the one wanting to deny the existence of God.

In science, you shoulder the burden of proof to sustain your hypothesis, whatever it happens to be.

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

KEEP READING.

Is Jesus Based on the Pagan Deity Horus?

Some people claim that, a long time ago, there was a god.

This god was born of a virgin on December 25th.

He was baptized.

He had twelve disciples.

He healed the sick and raised the dead.

But he was betrayed and crucified, and on the third day he was raised from the dead.

And according to the people who claim this, this god was not Jesus Christ.

Instead, he was the god Horus.

And, since Horus was worshipped before Jesus Christ, they claim that Jesus Christ is just a rip off of the god Horus.

Are they right?

That’s what we look at in this episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast.

If you’re reading the blog by email, click here to watch the video or listen to the audio-only version.

Use the links below to listen to or download the audio version.

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Is it okay to pray when you have doubts about God?

It’s great to have strong faith, to feel confident in what you believe.

That way you can “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).

But not everybody is at that point.

Some people are still coming to faith. Other people find their faith wavering at times.

So what about then? Is it okay to pray when you have doubts?

A Real Question

This is a real question. A reader writes:

I am going through a rough time and wanted to know whether it is okay to pray the rosary while being a bit skeptic about Jesus and Mary.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that Jesus is God, that Mary intercedes for me, that God exists, and that God has no evil in him.

Do you think, if God exists, it would be okay for doubting him while praying–or praying without hoping that somebody out there is listening?

Do you think its okay to pray to the Father than going through the Son and his Mother?

I’d like to say first that I am sorry that the reader is going through a rough time. I have been through rough times myself, and I will be praying for him.

I also invite other readers to pray for him and for everyone who is suffering. Whenever possible, I like to universalize my prayers that way.

Whenever I’m praying for someone in particular, I try also to pray for everyone else facing that difficulty. One of my favorite prayers is found in the Divine Mercy Chaplet:

“For the sake of His [Jesus’] sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

I’m also pleased to give the reader good news regarding his own prayers . . .

Why We Pray

KEEP READING.

What Is the Difference Between Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design?

cosmos — What’s the difference between creation, evolution, and intelligent design?

Creationism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design are three of the major positions on the question of how we got here.

What’s the difference between these positions?

That seemingly straightforward question proves surprisingly controversial.

Let’s take a look at it . . .

The Basic Question

The basic question at issue in the contemporary origins debate is whether or not the world was created.

It could be tempting to simply put participants in the discussion into two groups—creationists and evolutionists—and leave it at that.

Some on both sides of the issue would like to do exactly that.

In fact, some of the people who most readily identify themselves as creationists or evolutionists often speak as if these are the only two options.

Name Calling

Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesn’t hold their view as an “evolutionist” (using this term in a negative sense).

Some evolutionists dismiss everyone who thinks that the world was created as a “creationist” (using this term in a negative sense).

When this happens, the two camps are using prejudicial language. They’re calling each other names, and that doesn’t advance the discussion.

They’re also distorting the issue, because there are clearly middle positions on this question. In fact, there’s a spectrum of them.

The Spectrum

It’s possible to divide up that spectrum in different ways. In fact, it’s possible to divide it into a mind-numbing array of fine-tuned categories.

That gets unwieldy, though, and it seems that, today, most participants in the origins discussion would say that they advocate one of four major positions:

Creationism
Intelligent Design
Theistic Evolution
Atheistic Evolution

How can we describe these positions?

Creationism

KEEP READING.

Was James, not Peter, the head of the Church after Jesus?

Was St. James the Just the leader of the early Church--or was St. Peter? — Was St. James the Just the leader of the early Church–or was St. Peter?

Some claim that it was James, not Peter, who was the leader of the early Church after the time of Christ.

What evidence can they provide for this claim?

And what evidence is there against it?

Which James?

“James” was a common name in first century Judea, and there were several men named James who are mentioned in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, precisely how many Jameses there are many is not clear.

They are described different ways, and it is not clear whether a James described in one passage is the same as the James mentioned in another.

The James who assumed a prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem church after the time of Christ is known as “the brother of the Lord.”

This James is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus, who is also identified with James “the Less.”

However, Benedict XVI noted:

Among experts, the question of the identity of these two figures with the same name, James son of Alphaeus and James “the brother of the Lord”, is disputed [General Audience, Jun. 28, 2006].

Regardless of how this issue is to be settled, there is one James in the New Testament who is clearly not the one in question—James the son of Zebedee, because he was martyred quickly (Acts 12:1-2).

Advocates of the “James not Peter” viewpoint have two major texts that they can appeal to, and neither is very good.

The Galatians 2 Argument

KEEP READING.

Is the Catholic Church the one true Church? (7 things to know and share)

Is the Catholic Church the one, true Church? Here are 7 things to know and share with others . . .

In today’s brave new world of ecumenism, the Catholic Church no longer claims to be unique, right?

After all, Vatican II didn’t say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

It merely said that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church.

So that means the Catholic Church no longer views itself as the “one true Church,” right?

Not so fast . . .

1. The Source of the Issue

The source of the issue is found in Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, where we read:

8. This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

2. “Subsists In”?

The matter would be much clearer if the Council had used the traditional language of saying that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Instead, they use the unfamiliar wording “subsists in” (Latin, subsistit in) instead of “is” (Latin, est).

This can make it appear that the Council was backing away from the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and many people–including Catholic theologians–took it in precisely this way.

But was that the Council’s intent?

3. Addressing the Matter

KEEP READING.

It’s My 20th Anniversary as an Apologist (Wanna Help Me Celebrate?)

June 1 is a special day for me, and it has been for the last 20 years.

One reason is that it's the memorial day of St. Justin Martyr, who is one of the main patron saints of apologists.

As an apologist, that makes it special to me.

But there is another reason as well.

I didn't plan it this way, but my report-to-work day at Catholic Answers happened to be June 1.

It's a significant day to embark on a career of apologetics, and I've always regarded it as a gift of divine providence.

Since I started doing apologetics professionally on June 1, 1993, that makes June 1, 2013 my 20th anniversary in the field. (Professionally speaking, at least; I'd been doing apologetics informally before that or I wouldn't have got the job.)

So this June 1 is my platinum anniversary, and I'm celebrating.

The More Things Change . . .

Things have changed a lot in the field of apologetics in the last twenty years.

One of the biggest changes was the commercial availability of the Internet, which emerged from its shadowy origins as a DARPA research project to facilitate communication during a nuclear war and became the civilization-changing technology that it is today.

When I started in apologetics, it was uncommon for anybody to have an email address, and research was done exclusively though books and journals.

When I wanted to find something out, I think, "What book or journal should I look in to find the answer to this?"

I remember the moment in the mid-1990s when I realized that–via the Internet–I had the World's Greatest Research Library sitting on my desktop. A light went on in my head, and I said, "From now on, this is going to be the thing I turn to first to find research leads on a question." (Of course, that still means verifying the data, since not everything you read on the Internet is true.)

The advent of the Internet opened up new possibilities for apologetics as well. I've tried to be an early-adopter as web-based opportunities have come along, and in the mid-90s, I started a web site, which still exists today as JimmyAkin.com.

In the years since, I've started a blog (now pat of JimmyAkin.com), an internet radio show or podcast, and a YouTube video series–as well as other efforts, including Facebook and Twitter.

I've also done work in other media, including publishing books, booklets, and audio sets, appearing on Catholic radio (which has blossomed in recent years), and reaching out in every practical way I can think of.

My goal has been to reach as many people for Christ as I can, through the best means I have available to me, and to do so in a way that's fair, accurate, kind, and–when appropriate–playful.

BTW, if I've helped you–in person or at a distance–in the last twenty years, I'd love to hear how I've done so. Just let me know in the comments box or by email.

It's been my honor to serve Christ and serve others these last twenty years.

Here's hoping for twenty more.

What Now?

If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

How Does Forgiveness Work Before and After Christ?

If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)

Jesus died on the Cross so that people could be forgiven their sins.

But if he died in A.D. 33, what about all the people who lived and died before that time? Were their sins forgiven?

And if their sins were forgiven, does that mean Jesus’ sacrifice applies to all of history?

If so, does that mean that we’ve been forgiven for all of our sins—past, present, and future—so that we don’t need to go to confession?

How does this all work?

Here’s the story . . .

The Bottom Line

It may seem unusual to put the bottom line at the top of a post, but I generally find it better to state things in a straightforward, literal manner and only then (if necessary) use analogies to help clarify them.

So here’s are the literal facts:

1) Jesus’ death on the Cross made it possible for all human beings to be forgiven of their sins, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time.

2) In order to appropriate that forgiveness, people have to repent and turn to God. When they do so, God forgives them, regardless of when in history they lived.

3) During this life, people have free will, so if they un-repent (backslide, fall from grace, commit mortal sin) then they have committed new sins that are not (at that moment) forgiven.

4) In order to be forgiven of these new sins, they need to once more repent and turn to God. Then they will be forgiven of the new sins they committed.

Forgiveness B.C.

Suppose there is a person living in 800 B.C. Let’s call him King Bob.

KEEP READING.