Professor's Proposition: Only Two Logical Choices

[Blackrook]

My father, who is a very devout Catholic, has two Ph.d.'s, in math and computer science. He is very interested in science and he has a broad-ranged knowledge of science in many fields. He is also very informed of the Catholic faith.

My father had a Catholic father who really wasn't into it, and a mother who converted to Catholicism to marry my grandfather. But neither of them were much interested in religion.

My father, however, was so devout that by the age of 12 he was going to Mass by himself.

Which is to say, my father is not Catholic because he was brow-beat into it by his family, he is a devout Catholic because he used his intelligence to look into it and determined that the Catholic Church's claim to be the One True Faith are true.

Now, you can't dismiss my father as some ignorant fundamentalist, he very much believes in the theory of evolution and does not try to wave away any science because of the Bible.

And also, my father's IQ is so high that my guess is he's smarter than all but one or two people on this forum. He is certainly smarter than the vast majority of people who think they are intelligent and crow about it in groups like Mensa.

My father once told me that there are only two logical choices for the educated man who investigates the religion issue and comes to a conclusion based on all the evidence, without rejecting any due to prejudice or bias.

One logical conclusion is to be an agnostic.

And the second logical conclusion is to be a Roman Catholic, believing everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

And all other conclusions would ultimately be rejected if subject to thorough analysis by the educated man who really wants to know the truth.

Anyway, that's the start of what I'm saying here. Is there anyone here who believes my father is wrong about this?

I guess I'd like to hear from agnostics especially. And if there are any Catholics, I'd like to hear your reaction too.

[System of Solace]

And exactly why does he believe Roman Catholicism is the one true faith?

[Cinjin]

And exactly why does he believe Roman Catholicism is the one true faith?

because like his son, he's an idiot.

[Darkstar]

---

My father, who is a very devout Catholic, has two Ph.d.'s, in math and computer science. He is very interested in science and he has a broad-ranged knowledge of science in many fields. He is also very informed of the Catholic faith.

My father had a Catholic father who really wasn't into it, and a mother who converted to Catholicism to marry my grandfather. But neither of them were much interested in religion.

My father, however, was so devout that by the age of 12 he was going to Mass by himself.

Which is to say, my father is not Catholic because he was brow-beat into it by his family, he is a devout Catholic because he used his intelligence to look into it and determined that the Catholic Church's claim to be the One True Faith are true.

Now, you can't dismiss my father as some ignorant fundamentalist, he very much believes in the theory of evolution and does not try to wave away any science because of the Bible.

And also, my father's IQ is so high that my guess is he's smarter than all but one or two people on this forum. He is certainly smarter than the vast majority of people who think they are intelligent and crow about it in groups like Mensa.

My father once told me that there are only two logical choices for the educated man who investigates the religion issue and comes to a conclusion based on all the evidence, without rejecting any due to prejudice or bias.

One logical conclusion is to be an agnostic.

And the second logical conclusion is to be a Roman Catholic, believing everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

And all other conclusions would ultimately be rejected if subject to thorough analysis by the educated man who really wants to know the truth.

Anyway, that's the start of what I'm saying here. Is there anyone here who believes my father is wrong about this?

I guess I'd like to hear from agnostics especially. And if there are any Catholics, I'd like to hear your reaction too.

---

I'm not sure how you know that he's smarter than "all but one or two people on this forum" but I'm not going to call him ignorant. I can understand how someone would come to the agnostic conclusion; there is no absolute proof for or against god. However, I wonder how he 'knows' that Catholicism is the right one when there are so many forms. Likewise, I would like to see what evidence was used to reach this conclusion.

[Mystic]

Being smart doesn't mean you escape confirmation bias, and it doesn't mean you took the struggle to find out the truth in a certain manner.

I don't know why it's either Catholic religion or being agnostic. Why not a Deist?

[System of Solace]

I do wonder how somebody with a IQ that is supposedly so high would pick theism. If he was a deist I could somewhat respect that decision. But....Roman Catholic? Intelligent people are knowledgeable in certain subjects, but they often lack common sense.

[Darkstar]

Being smart doesn't mean you escape confirmation bias, and it doesn't mean you took the struggle to find out the truth in a certain manner.

I don't know why it's either Catholic religion or being agnostic. Why not a Deist?

Good point. If anything, it should be between atheist or agnostic, but if you must include a form of theism then deism would be the most likely one.

[Blackrook]

And exactly why does he believe Roman Catholicism is the one true faith?

I would need to ask him, and I will and get back to you.

I can tell you my reason.

I have investigated the many thousands of miracles documented by the Catholic Church in its 2000 year history. Many of them can't be proven because they are too long ago, but some of them are more recent in time and very hard to ignore.

For example, Joan of Arc revealed something she knew to the Dauphin of France that convinced him to give her control of the armies of France. Also, she identified him even though another man pretended to be the Dauphin while he hid among the courtiers. And she predicted the result of a battle that was hundreds of miles away. I could go in more detail but I don't need to. The biography of Joan is very well known and you can read about it on Wikipedia.

In more recent times, Padre Pio performed many miracles, including his stigmata, and he predicted that a certain Polish priest would one day be Pope, and it happened many years later.

But the big clincher for me is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. I looked into that and there is no way to explain how 70,000 people could be affected by a "mass hypnosis" which is the usual atheist explanation for this even.

But my Dad has other reasons, I think, that have nothing to do with modern miracles. I will call him and find out what they are and get back to you.

---

And exactly why does he believe Roman Catholicism is the one true faith?

because like his son, he's an idiot.

How old are you? You act like you're 12. Maybe you should sit this one out, because I meant this thread to be for grown-ups to know how to behave in grown-up conversations.

---

The reason atheism is not a logical choice is because it cannot be upheld with any manner of proof.

Faced with an absence of evidence of God, assuming one rejects all the evidence of miracles which I have described, it is not rational to say that there MUST be no God simply because there is no evidence that there is.

It seems to me that many atheists are willing to believe in plenty of other things without any proof, like the existence of intelligent life around other planets.

An agnostic knows there is no evidence either way, so he logically chooses to say there is no way to know and takes that position.

An atheist is taking a position of faith, believing in an unprovable doctrine.

[Tino]

Is there anyone here who believes my father is wrong about this?

Yes your father is wrong. But to understand why you'll need to do more than simply offer an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.

[System of Solace]

Ah, the Miracle of the Sun. Given too much credit. This event was apparently predicted. Not everyone saw it. And when you have thousands of people staring at the sun for hours, it's bound to cause vision problems. The reports were also inconsistent on what exactly was seen. Many were there and said it happened but never saw it. They say they were temporarily blinded or they were not looking correctly (see my conformity link). A few hundred used solar filters and saw-nothing. Here's a few theories:

Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun[30]. He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fatima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara[31].

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years[32].

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses[33].

Author Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural (but non-miraculous) extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky[34].

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/ind...49860.html

One other:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4110

This is the conformity link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confor...xperiments

The reason atheism is not a logical choice is because it cannot be upheld with any manner of proof.

Atheism does not claim something, it denies a claim. And there is proof to justify the denial.

Faced with an absence of evidence of God, assuming one rejects all the evidence of miracles which I have described, it is not rational to say that there MUST be no God simply because there is no evidence that there is.

Miracles=/=proof. Especially considering all recorded miracles (in recent years) have been debunked.

It seems to me that many atheists are willing to believe in plenty of other things without any proof, like the existence of intelligent life around other planets.

Once again, you generalize. That's a completely different topic. It is not irrational to think that life exists on other "Goldilocks" planets. The existence of these planets is more proof then theism has for any of it's claims.

An agnostic knows there is no evidence either way, so he logically chooses to say there is no way to know and takes that position.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist because I acknowledge I can be wrong. I think, however, that it is most rational to deny the existence of a god.