Open Letter to the Hosts of Ave Maria Radio
Upon information and belief, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants me to instruct the Catholic Church in America about the arguments for God’s existence. See: Rational Arguments for God’s Existence: Evangelizing is Good and Proselytizing is Bad at http://www.newevangelist.me for all of my correspondence.
To this end, I began a topic on Defenders of the Catholic Faith at http://forums.avemariaradio.net, which is hosted by Stephen Ray. My metaphysics teacher in college was W. Norris Clarke, S.J., and I was taught that the scientific arguments for God’s existence (first cause, Big Bang, fine-tuning of physics constants, design) were irrational and that the metaphysical arguments (free will, finite beings) made sense.
Quoting biologists, I argued that advocates of the theory of intelligent design for evolutionary biology don’t know what they are talking about. I also indicated why the scientific arguments are irrational. At this point, Stephen Ray banned me from making further comments.
Stephen Ray commented on my arguments. He does not see any difference between the scientific arguments and the metaphysical arguments. In his mind, the existence of God explains free will and the Big Bang. Thus, proving that the argument from the Big Bang is irrational in effect proves that God does not exist.
My guess is that Stephen Ray does not grasp the difference between the fallacy that human beings have souls and the provable truth that the human soul is spiritual. My other guess is that he thinks people don’t believe in Jesus because they have a “materialist world-view.” If someone thinks they are Napoleon, it does not mean that their world-view is focused on the 19th century. It means they are crazy.
I am hoping that you all can understand and relate to this letter and will assist me in my mission from the Holy Father.
Very truly yours, David RoemerEmail to Al Kresta relating what I wanted to post on Defenders of the Catholic Faith:
Upon information and belief, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants me to correct American Catholics who promote scientific arguments for God's existence (see http://www.newevangelist.me). The observation that leads to God's existence is the I-Thou relationship that exist between human beings. This gives rise to the question: What is a human being? The following quote from an atheist sets forth the four possible answers to this question.
Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)
There is nothing "traditional" about dualism. Dualism is just a bright idea from Descartes. "Neutral monism" is the theory supported by the evidence and judged to be true by rational people. There are a number of ways to express this:
- Humans are embodied spirits or spirited bodies.
- Humans are indefinabilities that become conscious of their existence.
- The human soul is spiritual.
- Humans are finite beings.
- Humans are rational animals.
It #3 and #4 that is the basis of the argument for God's existence. There is no point in explaining the argument to someone who thinks that "human beings have souls." There is no evidence for this. It is just another way of expressing dualism. The reason a lot of people think the Big Bang and fine-tuning of constants is evidence of God's existence is that they think there is more evidence for dualism than for materialism. They don't understand that there is more evidence for materialism than dualism.