The Blind Faith Beliefs of Secular Culture

Reuters:Kacper Pempel

Secularists are known for dismissing religion as merely espousing a set of blind faith beliefs without any evidence to support them. The crudest among them will often do it in a snide and sneering way, holding that religious belief is imagination and fantasy—like a childhood fairy tale—in contrast to the “scientific” view that they espouse. Actually, they betray themselves as the truly ignorant ones. First, they pay no attention to the “evidence that demands a verdict”—to use the title of a noted apologetic book—about Christianity and the internal consistency of its teaching. They just want to explain away obvious manifestations of the Divine. As Pope St. John Paul II once said, the Church is not afraid of the truth; she readily subjects herself to a searching examination of the validity of her claims.

Second, evangelical secularists embrace a narrow, incomplete definition of “science” as just involving empirical study. They can’t fathom that philosophy is also a science, which operates from evidence and sound reasoning. They seem unaware of how non-empirical, essentially philosophical, principles stand behind their own perspective. They also can’t grasp that other principles that they embrace—such as a defense of human rights and a rejection of racism—could not possibly be derived from empirical science.

Third, they don’t even understand what philosophy actually is. Both the evangelical secularists and those in American institutions who have reflexively embraced their mindset—like the public school officials who think that, say, chastity education violates the separation of church and state—can’t distinguish philosophy from theology. They seem unaware of such basic philosophical principles as causality and of the capabilities of human reason unassisted by Revelation to approach the Divine. One readily thinks here of Aristotle’s philosophical proof of the existence of God and, for that matter, of an order of beings between God and man (what Christians and Jews call the angelic).

Even as the secularists and the culture they have shaped scorns religion—and especially Christianity—as blind faith, one is awestruck by the catalog of their own blind faith beliefs. These are beliefs that often have no basis in the empirical science they claim to be devoted to, and sometimes even defy reason. We can find such blind faith beliefs everywhere in the secular culture. Christians have even unthinkingly accepted some of these because they have heard them so often. Here are some of the most obvious ones.

It is a given that there is global warming, to say nothing of the fact that its primary cause has to be the activities of people. This is in spite of the fact that in many areas we see very cold winters, colder than in previous years, and the historical record indicates that there are periods when average temperatures rise a bit and others when they go down. For the global warming enthusiasts, the actual weather, or the buffer of atmospheric phenomena like cloud cover, make no difference. We are just supposed to trust their computer models (even though this is supposed to be science, somehow conclusive empirical research really isn’t necessary).

What I call the “grand theory of evolution”—that man evolved from lower life forms—is an obvious example of a blind faith belief, again wrapped in the mantle of science. There is a hierarchy of scientific certitude: when a certain amount of evidence has been gathered but there is still considerable room for alternative explanations, we have a hypothesis; when the level of proof is considerably greater and the room for alternative explanations shrinks, we reach the level of a theory; when the evidence is indisputable and the realities clear, we have a law (such as gravity). People routinely call evolution a theory, and the evolutionists treat it essentially as a law. Frankly, with all the holes in the “grand theory,” the best that we could call it is a hypothesis.

Related to this is the age of the earth. It is taken as a given by writers, teachers, journalists, commentators and the like that the earth is billions of years old. Maybe this is correct, but the view that this is a certainty and that the scientific means to determine it airtight is simply untrue. The fact is that empirical research can go only so far in establishing something like this and the grand theory of evolution; there is a lot of judgment and, frankly, guesswork involved.

On sexual and family matters, we see a range of blind faith beliefs that have profoundly influenced American life. One of these is that sexual activity, so long as it’s carried out by mutual consent and birth control is used, has no consequences—even for minors. Closely related to this is that contraceptives are 100% reliable and, further, have no health consequences for women (abundant research suggesting the opposite is simply ignored). A similar blind faith belief is that women can resort to abortion without any likely physical or psychological effects (even serious regrets or guilt). Yet another blind faith belief is that it doesn’t make any difference what kind of family situation a child grows up in, so that not only is divorce not a significant issue—despite resounding recent social science evidence to the contrary—but two “parents” of the same sex is also no big deal.

Indeed, homosexualism has spawned such blind faith beliefs as that same-sex attraction is intrinsic from birth—again, the evidence clearly points otherwise—and even that there is a “gay gene” (this is completely in the realm of fantasy). Both homosexualism and feminism have generated the belief that men and women are completely interchangeable, and that the only fundamental difference between them is biological. Even the biological difference between men and women diminishes in importance because of another blind faith belief of the secular culture: that sex can actually be changed surgically or even by simply decreeing oneself to be of the other sex (even though every cell in a male body continues to have a Y chromosome).

One of the most basic blind faith beliefs of secularists, tied up especially with sexual morality, is that so-called “personal morality” in no way affects social mortality. So, they effectively claim—contrary to all human experience—that there is a “rigid wall of separation” between the individual and the life of a culture. Another is that an egalitarian ethos and public policies based upon it will not adversely affect human incentive and achievement. One of the most obvious of blind faith beliefs is in politics: the notion of uninhibited democracy embraced by Western secular culture believes that a mass of untutored voters—who may have very little citizenship or even moral formation—can necessarily make good and intelligent political choices (this is quite different from what the likes of Aristotle, our Founding Fathers, and Tocqueville thought).

From the classical liberal side of the secular culture, there is the long-time blind faith belief that economics works by rigid laws—as opposed to simply acknowledging tendencies such as supply-and-demand that reflect human nature—that work automatically for human good (the “invisible hand”). This Enlightenment-generated perspective ignores the fact that nothing happens automatically and helped sever ethics from economics and ushered in the one-time reign of social Darwinism.

These examples of secularist blind faith beliefs are just the tip of the iceberg; one could probably think of many more. The point is: blind faith characterizes secularism, not true religion.

(Photo credit: Al Gore in Poland, 2008; REUTERS/Kacper Pempel)

Stephen M. Krason

By

Stephen M. Krason's "Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic" column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis Magazine. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and associate director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville and co-founder and president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. His is the author of several books including The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic (Transaction Publishers, 2012), and most recently an edited volume entitled, Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Child Protective System (Scarecrow Press, 2013).

  • publiusnj

    A reflection on where “sexual liberation” is leading us. I heard a commercial for a hospice in the Bronx yesterday in which a daughter who had put her father there referred to the father as a “man’s man.” What does a term like that, which used to be so clear, though, mean nowadays in common parlance? Are two “gay” guys involved in a “gay marriage” now “men’s men” since they are one another’s “men”? And it gets even more tortuous: what if two lesbians self-identify as “men” and then find one another and enter into some form of union? Are they too “men’s men” if that is the way they think of one another?

  • Interested

    “One of the most basic blind faith beliefs of secularists, tied up
    especially with sexual morality, is that so-called “personal morality”
    in no way affects social mortality. So, they effectively claim—contrary
    to all human experience—that there is a “rigid wall of separation”
    between the individual and the life of a culture”

    So true and so common.

  • rtp

    The writer should stick to the gay obsession, his explanation around scientific theories and laws is overly simplified and wrong.

    • Augustus

      Are you capable of making an argument? Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

      • rtp

        ok.
        This is a very misleading and incorrect explanation from the article:
        “There is a hierarchy of scientific certitude: when a certain amount of evidence has been gathered but there is still considerable room for alternative explanations, we have a hypothesis; when the level of proof is considerably greater and the room for alternative explanations shrinks, we reach the level of a theory; when the evidence is indisputable and the realities clear, we have a law (such as gravity).”

        1. Laws are not explanations and are “above” theories Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

        Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

        Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

        Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

        Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

        So in fact a Theory encompasses much more than a Law.

        • Dick Prudlo

          So, where is no. 2. in your profound explanation?

          • rtp

            I never said it was profound, just that the writer mixes up the basic terms and methodologies of science. He clearly does not have much contact with actual science and should stick to what he knows. If he knew about the subjects he would not make so many common errors. He knows his theology and philosophy, he does not do well with scientific subjects.

        • Valentin

          Look most ‘science’ is based on theory, for example atoms, the idea that dinosaurs were giant lizards. A theory is not absolute which is why scientists seem so damned pretentious when they reject opposing theories from the get go, or even worse reject revelation from God simply because it is not in line with their current theory, but you be surprised how quickly scientific theories change just think about how not so long ago people believed in flogistin.

      • David
        • Augustus

          The International Theological Commission will accept whatever is fashionable in science because they want to be seen as respectable in the eyes of elite culture. And since they have no expertise in science anyway, there is no reason for anyone to place greater weight on what they say than on any other scientific views out there. Science changes all the time with new discoveries and interpretations of evidence. A little skepticism is healthy.

          • David

            really, Cardinal Ratzinger accepted whatever was fashionable? And I’m not placing greater weight because they are experts in science but because they speak in the name of the Church and advise the Magisterium.

            Maybe you misunderstand why I posted this: namely, as a rebuttal to Krason’s science-bashing and to point out that his “blind faith” science is actually the position taken by the Church. Denying evolution science and equating it with secularism is denying the Magisterium, to whom Dr Krason has taken the Oath of Fidelity

            • David

              scratch that, Dr Krason hasn’t taken the Oath, my mistake .. that might explain it

            • Augustus

              The Church has no special competence in natural science and her only binding authority is in faith and morals. I express no opinion on the specific scientific claims in the document you cite. I do challenge your assertion that Catholics must agree with these claims merely because they appear in this document. Cardinal Ratzinger may agree with these claims but that’s neither here nor there. Even as pope, he has no binding authority on these matters and would be ridiculed if he dared depart from the received orthodoxies on so-called “climate change” and related fashionable pseudo-scientific causes. You are free to agree with these statements, but you are not free to demand that everyone else do so as a matter of religious faith. And, no, the Oath has nothing to do with obedience to scientific theories that can and do change.

    • interested

      The poster should stick to the gay obsession, his explanation around
      scientific theories and laws is overly simplified and wrong.

    • ForChristAlone

      Fiat! What’s it like to be God?

  • Thomas

    Well, Mr. Krason, didn’t you know that they call themselves “freethinkers.” They are free to think about all things except the supernatural. This exclusion limits their thinking and, thus, denies true freedom of thought.

    The believer is the true freethinker

  • kmk

    My belief is that these ‘non’-believers believe only in themselves to defend their fragile egos. They are, unfortunately, self-serving rather than putting others (God especially) first.

  • tamsin

    I was with you right up until the end;

    From the classical liberal side of the secular culture, there is the long-time blind faith belief that economics works by rigid laws—as opposed to simply acknowledging tendencies such as supply-and-demand that reflect human nature—that work automatically for human good (the “invisible hand”).

    Are you saying that somebody is saying that the Invisible Hand is a Rigid Law that Works Automatically For Human Good?

    My understanding of the Invisible Hand is that it is the composite of choices of free-will moral agents (you and me!) operating in a market by way of voluntary exchange, responding to supply-and-demand that reflects our human nature: our capacity for good or evil. The way God made us.

    The Human Good is not so much thereby automatically obtained as allowed, because individuals who compose a market in their exchange of goods and services get to make their free-will choices.

    • Diego Fernando Ramos Flor

      So, it was all good until Mr. Krason touched your personal god. Good to know.

      • tamsin

        You and others mistake Adam Smith using a metaphor (“as if led by an invisible hand…”) for Smith proposing a god.

        He wasn’t. He was discussing increases in domestic product, based on the premise that increases are good for the people of a particular nation.

        I am emphasizing that freedom is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the human good.

        • Diego Fernando Ramos Flor

          Just for the record, I never mentioned Adam Smith, and be sure that I was not talking about him in my previous comment. Remember that Smith is one of the most all-time misquoted authors (and almost nobody quotes his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
          It’s clear that Mr. Krason was referring to those who actually see markets as a god, and not as a social intrument. I hope you’re not one of them; facing the possibility of doubt, I apologize for my previous comment.
          Mr. Krason never mentioned freedom, but we have to remember that we could be tempted to see freedom as a god, and not as a right (because gods have no limits, rights can’t be understood without duties; there are clear Commandments). Remember that even in slavery, even in the middle of dictatorship, our brothers and sisters, some of them martyrs, found freedom, and it was not the absence of rulers, but the presence of the Cross.

          On a subject somehow related, yesterday I read something about a singular town in Italy, established by catholics only, called “Nomadelfia”, maybe you could find it interesting too: http://www.nomadelfia.it/eng/interface_fr_files/popolo.html

          • TheAbaum

            “It’s clear that Mr. Krason was referring to those who actually see markets as a god”

            No, it’s not at all clear. He said “there is the long-time blind faith belief that economics works by rigid laws—as opposed to simply acknowledging tendencies”

            The statement is correct. Just about every modern Phd thesis is written in mathematical language one would assume reserved to describing the inanimate subject of physics. People are not inanimate and too many PhD’s don’t seem to understand that for centuries complex financial instruments were traded without Black-Sholes, The Capital Asset Pricing Model or the Ito calculus or any of a myriad of elegant, but impractical models and those methods provide estimates of value that are not indisputable.

            There is plenty of criticism of that aspect of economics, from people like recently deceased centenarian Ronald Coase, who called it “blackboard economics”.

            However, that economics is generally too mathematicized, doesn’t mean it’s a god.

            People who make that charge simply are agoraphobes who desperately want to believe that there is some sort of attainable earthy perfection, a talisman that will free us from the contraints imposed by people-who will always be finite and sinful.

            The free market is simply the best way to provide for private goods, that is, things that are nonrivalrous and nonexcludible, because it diffuses the epistemic risks involved in production. It is the very expression of subsidiarity.

            On the contrary, those would would place everything in the purview of the state make gods of politicians and bureaucrats.

        • TheAbaum

          Anybody who has read Smith he was no pollyanna, despite being an absent-minded bachelor his whole life.

          Although Protestant, he may have had greater respect for the reality original sin than contemporary Catholics.

  • tamsin

    With regard to climate science, those who induce catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, go on to deduce the necessity of population control.

    • Valentin

      Not to mention that the whole population control plan comes from people being more concerned for their own comfort than they are for other peoples lives, they just dress it up as a concern for the environment so that they and others don’t feel bad about it.

      • TheAbaum

        They are dedicated to the elegant nonsense of Malthusian ism. It’s so appealing to truncate population grown curves and declare them as exponential, when they are actually second order linear differential equations.

        • Valentin

          That’s right, they also like to pretend that there isn’t enough food on the planet, but Buckminster Fuller proved them wrong.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Yes… In Cain’s opinion, four people were already too many. Not much has changed since then.

    • James

      I would take global warming far more seriously if so many global warming advocates weren’t also neo-Malthusians.

      Malthusians are the doomsday prophets of the scientific world. The end is always near, never here.

    • ForChristAlone

      But notice that they never offer their own lives as the ones to be eliminated in order to assist with the solution to global warming.

      • TheAbaum

        Every drop says it is not part of the flood.

    • hombre111

      Perhaps during the lives of your grandchildren, the truth or lie in the issue will become apparent even to the devoutly stubborn. Nature itself will control the human population, by thirst, famine, and war. As usual, it will be the weakest and most vulnerable who suffer most. We already see this in the sad reality of abortion.

      • fredx2

        Oh, come on now, you old Malthusian. Think of it this way. Will more scientific advances be made by 1 scientist, or by 100 scientists? The greater the population, the more scientists. The more scientists, the more discoveries. One man alone,Norman Borlaug, discovered how to feed billions with improved strains of wheat.
        The more people, the better life becomes. All of the problems have solutions, and the more people to address them the more they get solved.

        • TheAbaum

          The late Julian Simon used to quote an African proverb about people having one mouth (to feed) but two hands.

        • hombre111

          The assumption that technology will solve all the problems technology helps create is an illusion. The solution is still in the human heart. Like consuming less. Like developing an economic system that doesn’t depend on consumption. I read in the NYT that cutting down on gas consumption would yield more available fuel than all the fracking that is going on.

      • ForChristAlone

        You really believe that the poor in the USA abort because they they cannot feed one more child? Just when I was beginning to gain some respect for your brilliance.

        • TheAbaum

          Yeah, he’s “incandescent”. That was the adjective applied to Obama when the cult of personality was in full force.

          Both are rather dim.

        • hombre111

          During the Great Recession, the abortion rate soared among the blacks in New York and New Jersey, until less than half came to term. As things have gotten better, it has diminished. A colleague of mine in campus ministry cited a European study which showed a direct co-relation between the number of abortions and the woman’s sense of an economic future. When the state shut down social services, abortions went way up.

    • hombre111

      I think the religious among us would say, “control your habits of waste and consumption.” My red state has very poor public transportation. On my way to celebrate weekday Mass, I found myself in a traffic jam, each car (here, pickup) with one passenger. How much fuel wasted pushing around how many tons of fuel, when a bus could have hauled us all, and then some. If the devil had devised a plan to help us use up our resources and trash the earth as rapidly as possible, he would have taught us the habits we don’t know how to break.

      • Objectivetruth

        Scientists have reported that the carbon emissions from your daily burnings of the Catechism and sacred scripture has created a hole in the ozone layer the size of New Hamshire.

        • hombre111

          Heh. Pretty good.

      • Interested

        People are well aware of over consumption and waste. It is the rest of the moral law they are not happy about.

        • hombre111

          The earth is a self-enclosed space ship zooming through a death-dealing vacuum, with no life boat. There might not be a greater sin than the destruction of the only life resource we have as a human race.

          • TheAbaum

            “a self-enclosed space ship zooming through a death-dealing vacuum, with no life boat”

            Sounds like your reading list, except that it is also a death-dealing vacuum.

          • fredx2

            But that destruction will not occur because we drive cars.

      • TheAbaum

        Green is the new red, and apparently the old red as well.

      • TheAbaum

        Not enough. He’s Italian, he should be driving a Fiat 500 or a Smart Car or Mini Cooper.

        The Lord rode an ass. Perhaps the Pope can get one too.

        I know where to find them.

        Of course real poverty would be you yankin’ on a rickshaw.

        FORD.

        Found on Road Dead

        Fix or Repair Daily.

        • Objectivetruth

          How about a bike? Makes the footprint of a Ford Focus look like that of Godzilla’s. I’ve got a 40 year old Schwinn you could have, hombre. Sell your Focus and give the money to the poor.

          • TheAbaum

            After all, if your really committed you’ll go and sell ALL you have.

      • fredx2

        But there is a reason everyone drives his own car. It is more economically efficient. if they were to ride bus, they waste precious time. Time is extremely important, and has economic value. Its value is obviously worth the cost of a car, the money spent on upkeep insurance and repair. To suggest everyone ride busses is to force them to waste an even greater resource.

        • portlandCatholic

          As C.S. Lewis wrote, “Time belongs to God.” When people start thinking of it as something they can “save” or “waste” they have forgotten or ignored God’s Providence in the world.

          In cities where public transportation is given a fighting chance to compete with automobiles, waiting a few minutes for a bus or train is worth the headache and expense of owning and driving an automobile. Time spent waiting can be opportunities for reflection, prayer, or talking to someone you might not normally talk to–you know, like Christ would have.

  • Stanley Anderson

    I find nature and the universe to have the seemingly continual and curious habit of slapping science in the face and saying, effectively, “So there!”

    As just one example out of many possible throughout history, I’m not a Creationist (at least not in the popularly used “literal seven-days” mode too easily and mockingly bandied about these days), but just the other day I was reading a (obviously mocking and denigrating and so-very-oft-repeated) description of a supposed Creationist’s view that God created the universe recently but gave it a fossil record and starlight in a configuration that makes it look like they’ve been around for millions or billions of years.

    Whatever. But then nature, in the form of quantum physics, gives science the “delayed choice experiment” that effectively says the same thing about our very act of observation and collapse of the wave function (too difficult to describe briefly and accurately, but can be looked up fairly easily). Regardless of the veracity of either view, the contrast in the view that one is simply ridiculous and the other sublime science is definitely “curious”. And certainly an example of nature’s attitude of “So there!”

    • hombre111

      Excellent, sir. I think that science reveals a Mind, a Power, a Wisdom, a Love that is almost infinitely adaptable, with a great sense of humor. David Platinga explores some of this in his writing.

  • Brian

    It might help to refine some of these claims as being made by “all,” “many,” or “some” secularists/religious, as without this clarification the article paints with too broad a brush in its categorizations. I know a number of secularists who do not believe in global warming or in a gay gene or in the idea that personal morality has no effect on social morality. No doubt there are some secularists and some religious people who will dismiss good science “in blind faith” due to personal or political bias. Many devout Catholics, including the past three popes and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, would agree with the views on global warming that appear to be attributed above only to “secularists” (the science does in fact include empirical evidence such as ice core and tree ring analysis, decades of global temperature recordings, quantification of carbon particles in the atmosphere over time, changes in ocean temperature, ocean acidification, sea level rise, analysis of extreme climate events, etc., and does not rest merely on computer models.) Similarly, many Catholics believe in evolution and agree that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. There is nothing heretical about holding these beliefs. There is a great deal of overlap in the views of secularists and religious and not necessarily because either holds scientific views in “blind faith.” In charity, we must conclude that many members of both groups research these issues conscientiously and understand the value of well-researched scientific theories and that science is procedural, continuing, and evolving.

    • ForChristAlone

      You wirte: “science is procedural, continuing, and evolving.” You forgot to add “and politicized (by the Left).”

  • hombre111

    Let’s see: Global warming, evolution, the age of the earth. All matters of blind faith, to be sneered at by the orthodox. This article has no intellectual credibility.

    • ForChristAlone

      Yet you remain. What might we conclude from that?

      • hombre111

        It is a lonely but sacred calling to haunt this site and cause consternation among the complacent.

        • Objectivetruth

          I still believe you’re actually a bored Hillary Clinton or Al Gore, not a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

        • TheAbaum

          Yes, you have more sacred cows than all of India.

          Too bad you regard the profane as sacred.

  • hombre111

    I can remember when Crisis first began its work, led by some serious and respected conservative Catholic intellectuals. And today? Thank heavens for Kalb and Regis and others. I cannot imagine William Buckley signing on to the nonsense expressed in this article.

    • Art Deco

      You haven’t the intellectual equipment to distinguish ‘serious and respected’ from tiddlywinks.

    • TheAbaum

      Well, there’s always Commonsqueal.

      • Interested

        And that group is not an uber liberal echo chamber then none exists.

    • jerry

      Hombre, he “jumped the shark” on this one!

    • ForChristAlone

      Yet here you remain annoying the rest of us.

    • Objectivetruth

      Although I wouldn’t approach it in the same condescending way as hombre, possibly Crisis can approach strong writers such as George Weigel, Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft for contributory articles.

      What d’ya say, Crisis Editor?

      • Interested

        Frankly, those authors you mention have ample avenues available to them already. Crisis seems to be an alternative to the usual. Which is great!!

        • Crisiseditor

          Thank you. We do try to chart our own course.

          • Interested

            I hope and pray your circulation continues to increase. You provide a service that is much needed.

        • Objectivetruth

          Agreed…..Crisis is my first “go to” every morning!

      • Crisiseditor

        We would welcome submissions from these fine gentlemen. But it is true that they are in great demand and are unlikely to have time to add another publication to their already lengthy list of publishing outlets.

        • tamsin

          Please reprint WFB’s response to Populorum Progressio

        • Objectivetruth

          Thank you!

          Regardless of what hombre says, I believe you guys do a great job with fantastic articles. Hombre only bats .200 in his theological arguments and accuracy anyway, so one has to wonder why he feels compelled to crankily fire his self authored version of the Catechism at the computer screen.

          Thanks again, and keep up the great work!

          • fredx2

            No, he’s right on this one. The intellectual heft has decreased a bit. If they can’t get Weigel, etc, then they should find the new Weigels of the world.

    • fredx2

      Yeah, this article is a bit of a joke. Global warming is nonsense, but evolution and the age of the earth are pretty well set. I agree with you – I would like to see more intellectual rigor.

      • hombre111

        Thanks, Fred.

      • renner411

        I hope you’re not serious. ‘…evolution and the age of the earth are pretty well set?’ Oh my. There are myriad articles explaining the scientific community’s stubbornness and ignorance on both of these topics. You cannot be a Catholic and believe in evolution. Frankly, you cannot be intelligent and believe in evolution. There is no link, and there never will be. Adaptation, sure. Evolution, no. ‘No Intelligence Allowed’ is a cute little documentary by Ben Stein highlighting the fact that scientists are blackballed for disagreeing with evolutionary hypotheses.

        It has been proven that sedimentary/stratification layers can form in a matter of years, if not sooner, in lab tests. Also, the way that layers sediment is often in such a way that the layers at the bottom are concurrent with the time period of those at the top. Look it up. Simple sand-box and aquarium science projects will prove that. I’d add links, but you’re a big boy. Just look up the problems with carbon dating, and its unstable rate of corruption.

        I just ask that before you sound off on things like this, and criticize, you do a little research of your own.

        Those who seek truth will find it.

        • Daniel Burns

          I understand that it may be possible to problematize evolution from a scientific perspective, even though it is the closest thing to a scientific consensus, however, I do not understand your statement “you cannot be Catholic and believe in evolution.” It is possible that you are more well-versed in the science of the issue, but you clearly are unfamiliar with the many positive (and magisterial) statements made by the last several popes (beginning with Pius XII) regarding the great compatibility between the science of evolution and Catholic theology. In any case, one thing we can certainly say that it has become very dubious for a young earth creationist to be a faithful Catholic. You did not say you are one, but that is usually the case for someone to go against evolution. Unless you are an intelligent design devotee…which would be at least as bad as young earth creationism because it denies the fact that God is the cause of all causes and also denies the fact that God works primarily through secondary causality.

          • renner411

            I most certainly am a young earth creationist, even though I’ve never heard the moniker; and an ID devotee. Both of these I find essential in taking the Bible seriously. I recommend the works of Fernand Crombette, a French scientist whose work is outstanding in his field. He even *gasp* claims that the Earth is in the center of the universe. When you put your Faith in tradition and the Bible, things line up quite well, and you easily put the puzzle of both young Earth and instantaneous creation together.

            Along with Fernand Crombette, works such as ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ are interesting, and certainly shed some light on the fact that things are not as black and white as the faddish scientists would lead you to believe. I believe Darwin would roll in his grave if he knew that, knowing what is known now, they’re still pathetically trying to eek out sense from his theories. He was the first to say that, if science made any further discoveries, he would scrap his hypothesis. Keep in mind that his concept of cell construction was an extremely simple one; one which we know now to be outlandishly false.

            The movie ‘The Principle’ is coming out soon, if it hasn’t already; and that should prove to be most interesting as well. I believe the basis is ‘dark matter.’

            I’m no scientist, but I ardently desire the truth in all things. I read, read, and read some more. I read the ‘legit’ scientists, I read the ‘crackpot’ scientists. I leave nothing unturned. I’ve found (as I’m sure you would agree) that one cannot simply take what one is hand fed. You must search and sift. The truth is out there to be found, but it is usually not what is handed to the gullible on a silver platter. And, interestingly enough, one finds that the Church was right all along!

            Thanks for the comment, Daniel. A little debate can be fun, right?

            • Daniel Burns

              Before we continue, I must know: Are you a sede vacantist? I.e. do you accept the magisterium of the last eleven popes and of the Second Vatican Council?

              • renner411

                Most definitely not sedevacantist. I would answer to ‘Traditionalist,’ though.

                Are we continuing? ;)

                Oftentimes these just turn into uncharitable argue-fests full of ad hominems and no real conclusion. Agreeing to disagree works, too. After all, none of this is a matter of dogma. I like to have people leave their computer with a smile rather than a scowl. Although I do enjoy a good debate.

  • Valentin

    Even if there was a climate change that we are the cause of it is not our job to worship the earth, but rather to adore Christ, worship the Blessed Mother, and honor the saints.

    • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

      VENERATE the Blessed Mother. Worship is due to God in His Three Persons alone.

      • TheAbaum

        Yes, we don’t need to further that calumnious charge.

      • Valentin

        According to etymonline ‘worship’ caomes from an anglosaxon word that means ‘condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown’

        • TheAbaum

          In the contemporary usage of the word, “worship” would be the esteem and affection to due to God and God only.

          • Valentin

            Well then we need a word that is specific to the Blessed mother because other Saints have been venerated. But the Blessed Mother has a higher position than other Saints do and she deserves more than veneration.

            • TheAbaum

              Not worship. Stop being a heretic,

        • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

          You’re trying to defend the indefensible In Christian theology, worship has a special meaning that is applied to God alone. Saints, even the Blessed Mother, are only venerated.

          The equivalent word to worship is adoration, whose root is in Latin.

          • Valentin

            But the Blessed Mother deserves more than veneration because she holds a higher position than all the other saints. Adoration and worship aren’t one in the same word.

            • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

              You are right that our Blessed Mother deserves more veneration than the saints of whom she is queen. More recently, VII created the term “hiperdulia” to refer to the venerations due to her, in contrast to “dulia” as the general veneration of the saints. Yet, traditionally, this distinction was not made.

              Worship comes from German and adoration, from Latin, but they are synonyms. But this is particularity of English, for Romance languages have only one word, rooted in Latin, to refer to the adoration due to God alone and it’s never, ever used to anyone else.

              • Valentin

                Ok thank you for the clarification, I think one problem is that there is so much confusion as to what people mean simply because the current attitude doesn’t care about proper language both in Latin and English, that might be part of what my confusion was. I should remember Hiperdulia, thanks.

  • montanajack1948

    I’d be interested in seeing some of your sources–since I’m sure you have them–for this litany of “blind faith” beliefs that secularists supposedly have about sex:

    “sexual activity, so long as it’s carried out by mutual consent and birth control is used, has no consequences—even for minors. Closely related to this is that contraceptives are 100% reliable and, further, have no health consequences for women (abundant research suggesting the opposite is simply ignored). A similar blind faith belief is that women can resort to abortion without any likely physical or psychological effects (even serious regrets or guilt). Yet another blind faith belief is that it doesn’t make any difference what kind of family situation a child grows up in…”

    I spend a good deal of my time with secularists–and worse, liberal Christians–and I’ve never heard any of them espouse a single one of these views. Maybe they didn’t get the memo?

    • Interested

      They must state it aloud in specific terms for it to be true?

      • montanajack1948

        Well, unless you have some other evidence. I find mind-reading an unreliable method of divining other people’s beliefs; generally, they either have to state them in some fashion or demonstrate them by their behavior. My secular/liberal friends would, based on everything I’ve ever heard them say or known them to do, disagree with every one of the above “beliefs” about sex. If you like, though, I’d be happy to ask them…in fact, that’s a great idea and I think I’ll do it on my blog. Thanks!

        • Interested

          Their actions speak volumes. To live in this culture and to deny the obvious is not honest.

          • montanajack1948

            Since you don’t know “them” (that is, the people about whom I was speaking), I don’t see how you can know what “their actions” say. I’ll get back to you with the results of my informal survey, if you’re still Interested.

            • Interested

              I am referring to the general population.

        • ForChristAlone

          Isn’t it possible that the author also has secular friends whom he has canvassed regarding their attitudes toward sex and has drawn conclusions in a way similar to the one you’re suggesting that you conduct yourself? Not every impression or conclusion we arrive at is the result of an empirical study.

        • JP

          Your debating style demands that the author answer to the “beliefs” of your alleged secular friends – people the author has never met, and whom you do not elaborate on. You demand the author defend himself against abstractions. The author describes in broad terms secularism and you accuse him of not answering your unsubstantiated claims regarding specific yet unknown people.

    • JP

      Do not pay attention to what they say, but what they actually do. Look at the actions of the leadership and not the words of the flock that follows. Their silent approval is still approval.

  • bonaventure

    No, secular ideology is not blind. It knows exactly what it wants, and it is pushing by all means to get it: the destruction of Christianity.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    I resemble these remarks. I myself have passed through many stages, especially on economics and life issues, of finding out that secular culture *failed* to have the answer when the Church did. Most of that time, that answer was truly imprudent in ways that I did not expect. But the Church answer, though imprudent, is always correct.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    Scientficism is an offshoot from Gnosticism, for it strains to prove the non-existence of the transcendent by proving immanence. Some might say that since love is merely a chemical in the brain, it proves that there is no God, since if God is Love then He’s but a chemical.

    There are two problems to those making this statement. Firstly, there is no scientific proof of such chemical. It has not been identified and isolated, its molecular structure is unknown. Therefore, it is not scientific to ascribe any credence to it than to a theory without much of a foundation leading to it. Secondly, and this is where the Gnostic influence damns it, the assumption that transcendent and immanent, spiritual and physical, are separate realities is an ideological bias. For to Catholics both realities are facets of the created world and its beings, especially the human person, the only creature on the world with an immortal spiritual facet, the soul.

    Unfortunately, Protestantism, especially in its Lutheran and Calvinist branches, hailed from Gnosticism by its implicit dualism between body and soul. This means that some cultures have been exposed to it for a few centuries and molded the minds and cultures of its followers, ingraining such duality.

  • Watosh

    Then there is the blind faith in the mythical, imaginary “free market.’ Othodox practicing Catholics are particularly susceptible to this delusion.

    • TheAbaum

      In your mind.

  • TheAbaum

    Where I sit, ten thousand years ago was just south of a massive glacier whose footprints are still visible.

    Hundreds of Millions of years ago, it was a lush, tropic swamp.

    We must do something about Saurogenic climate change.

    • Tony

      AND by lucky chance, guess whose daughter yesterday asked him to show her the Archbald Pothole? We were in town, visiting my mother … We did see it, and it’s pretty impressive, for a pothole. I had hoped there would be nobody else there, but the hope proved vain. When I was a little kid, you could actually take people there on picnics. Not anymore …

      In the category, “Things Are Different Now”: while I was waiting for my mother and my daughter to get some groceries, I climbed up a hill behind the store’s parking lot, banked with boulders they’d gotten from the area. I figured there might be fossils all over the boulders, and I was right — mostly grasses, a couple of leaves, but a very funny band of “diamond” shapes, like scales of a fish. In five minutes, one of the managers of the store came out to ask me what I was doing. Can’t do those things now.

      • TheAbaum

        Funny, I was in Scranton yesterday.

  • thebigdog

    The religion of Leftism requires much faith, but because they mock people of faith and are “far too intelligent” to ever fall into a category which requires faith, they have cleverly deferred all beliefs to be based in science. When science does not provide answers to support their religion, they simply say that the scientific support their beliefs require will be discovered soon… it’s “immanent”

    - That there is no real difference between males and females (and that boys acting like boys are really just defective little girls),
    - People are born homosexuals (even though the promise of discovering a gay gene turned out to be a fantasy)
    - Darwin’s theory requires a fossil record, but that promise seems to have been broken also… but their faith is still strong.
    - Global cooling, global warming, climate change… it doesn’t matter, the solution is the same — redistribution of wealth.

    In reality, it requires a lot of faith to belong to the church of leftism.

    • Maria

      I think you mean “imminent” when you say “immanent”, but it is also a pun if you mean science is their god.

      • thebigdog

        It would have been a good pun, but unfortunately, I just misspelled it. Thank you for pointing it out and I will edit.

  • Pingback: John Paul II Was A Saint Before He Was Pope - BigPulpit.com

MENU