When I first read my friend’s post, I had a major “I notice that I am confused” moment, because it just seemed so implausible that someone who understood actual atheist arguments (as opposed to dead little sister Hollywood Atheism) could convert to religion, and Catholicism of all things.
I’ll rejoin Jack and GLaDOS to say that Catholicism isn’t the worst of religions. If I was to convert to a religion it would probably be Catholicism, and I’ve sometimes semi-seriously played with the idea of checking out the local church—and yes, I understand actual atheist arguments, and no, none of my family is pushing me towards religion.
(A significant part of the attraction of Catholicism is being a contrarian for the sake of it, which is not a very good reason. But there’s also a good deal of curiosity, and a feeling that they’re pretty good at community. On the minus side, they are responsible for a good deal of anti-epistemology, and of course, God doesn’t exist.)
I’ve sometimes semi-seriously played with the idea of checking out the local church
Churches can be nice for the community, even if you’re atheist. Julia and I regularly [1] attend the local Quaker meeting, and occasionally go to churches with organs and singing. Neither of us believe, but that doesn’t mean we can’t go enjoy it.
[1] Actually, not recently. Hmm. But regularly up to a few months ago.
So… were you presented with a convincing argument that this statement is unprovable, you would consider Catholicism (or a version suitably sanitized from “anti-epistemology”) seriously?
I already don’t think that statement is provable—it’s informal, something more specific would be “the supernatural divine interventions described in religious traditions did not happen”, and even that may be described as “unprovable”; proof is for maths.
I’ll rejoin Jack and GLaDOS to say that Catholicism isn’t the worst of religions. If I was to convert to a religion it would probably be Catholicism, and I’ve sometimes semi-seriously played with the idea of checking out the local church—and yes, I understand actual atheist arguments, and no, none of my family is pushing me towards religion.
(A significant part of the attraction of Catholicism is being a contrarian for the sake of it, which is not a very good reason. But there’s also a good deal of curiosity, and a feeling that they’re pretty good at community. On the minus side, they are responsible for a good deal of anti-epistemology, and of course, God doesn’t exist.)
Churches can be nice for the community, even if you’re atheist. Julia and I regularly [1] attend the local Quaker meeting, and occasionally go to churches with organs and singing. Neither of us believe, but that doesn’t mean we can’t go enjoy it.
[1] Actually, not recently. Hmm. But regularly up to a few months ago.
So… were you presented with a convincing argument that this statement is unprovable, you would consider Catholicism (or a version suitably sanitized from “anti-epistemology”) seriously?
I already don’t think that statement is provable—it’s informal, something more specific would be “the supernatural divine interventions described in religious traditions did not happen”, and even that may be described as “unprovable”; proof is for maths.