The Maroon

People should question what they believe

By DANIEL QUICK Religious Reflections

Published: Thursday, May 3, 2012

Updated: Thursday, May 3, 2012

DANIEL QUICK

The Maroon

DANIEL QUICK In My Opinion

Faith matters. Faith says something about what kind of person you are and how you approach the universe. That is not to say that any denomination or philosophy is necessarily right or wrong—each, I imagine, would argue for the merits of its own assessment of the spiritual world, be that the divinity of Christ from any Christian sect or whether failure in battle the previous day was a result of some trick by Loki— but that the question itself is important for any thinking being.

We live in a universe that we know frighteningly little about.Our direct experience doesn’t even extend past the immediate vicinity of our planet; we have been afforded only the briefest glimpses of what lies beyond our tiny world, which even the most adventurous of us will never see in its totality. To fail to think about the possibility of a spiritual dimension beyond even the paltry physical reality we know is, for any sentient being, simply unconscionable.

I am not disavowing atheists: If an atheist reflects on the world and sees no sign of the divine, that’s a perfectly respectable position. Nor am I unconditionally endorsing the religious. If someone has faith without ever questioning its tenets or the possible validity of conflicting ideas, then they have failed in their responsibilities as a sentient being.

Faith should not be easily shaken. Faith—be it faith that we are alone in the universe and what we see is what we get, faith that Christ died for our sins or faith that Odin will show personal favor during next day’s glorious battle— is something you build your life and your perception of all its complexities upon. But that does not exclude wider consideration. When it comes to matters of faith, we must go beyond tolerance to outright consideration—we must be willing to consider that the tenets of the faith we are looking at, however ridiculous they seem, might hold some truth.

Because it is only when we are willing to recognize the possible validity of other faiths that we can truly know and respect our own. Faith is not knowledge—it can make no claims to be fact. An atheist assumes that, for what little we know about the universe, we will never find evidence of the divine. There is no clear record that indicates that Mary did give birth as a virgin and her son died and was resurrected in accordance with his divine nature. And there is no proof that falling glorious battle will allow a mighty warrior to go to Valhalla. These are simply choices we make in what to believe in. And those who believe—which is to say, every single person on Earth, no matter what view they take—have to consider the possibility that other views are equally as valid as their own. This does not mean we have to doubt, but belief is not fact, and to treat it as such is to do ourselves and our
fellow humans a disservice. If you think, you believe in something—be that in physical reality alone, the divinity of Jesus Christ or the validity of the Norse pantheon. Be willing to think about your beliefs, and to trust that your fellow humans have done the
same.

Daniel Quick is a history and english writing senior and the Opinion and Editorial Editor of The Maroon. He can be reached at dtquick@loyno.edu

Comments

14 comments
Anonymous
Tue Jun 5 2012 12:46
1) I am completely open to having my mind changed. Just show me something that is legitimate and not some crazy, irrational, baseless opinion or belief that you've just grown up hearing your whole life but have nothing to back it up. Then, I will be happy to have a conversation and be open to your reasoning, but right now what you are saying comes from your OPINION, not facts, reason or truth. You have the mental block where you can't see the ridiculousness of your arguments and how they are just as equal to any other religion, cult, alien, monster, or any belief in something supernatural. If some guy came up to you and said he believes in Zeus, and Zeus loves you and wants a relationship with you and all that, you would look at him like he's crazy. You're an atheist in that regard, you don't believe in all these other "gods" that many other people do. I just take it one step further.

It's also very condescending they way you speak as if I am "missing out" and that someday i'll come around and realize and ask God to forgive me and be redeemed and have a relationship with him. You can spend your short time on this planet trying to please your imaginary friend and only doing it in fear that your going to burn in hell if you don't, OR... you can choose to live a life that is happy, unfearful, full of love and ready to experience the world in your own way that doesn't follow or become dictated by some ambiguous "god" and his crazy rules about eating crackers on Sunday and not having sex in certain positions. At least in my death bed, I can look back and say, I enjoyed my life and didn't allow somebody else to dictate it. And, if I die and God DOES exist, I can say to him... well, you should have given me more evidence buddy!

Thomas Billings
Tue May 22 2012 14:21
Good mind. Green. Yes. Young. Yes. But at least he is talking about faith. Bravo. Think our young Loyola at this age. Crisis of faith that led...well, to all this. So, Daniel Quick is a senior. Lots of potential here. Passion. Intelligence. Ethical resolve. One would pray, hope, challenge....his adviser (Jesuit and/or department) would not him escape his senior year without being guided to a life of service. Many of us believe we were led here, to this grace filled place of learning. One would hope that we as academics not fail to notice and act upon the subtle signals that surface for all of our students.
Thomas Billings
Tue May 22 2012 14:20
Good mind. Green. Yes. Young. Yes. But at least he is talking about faith. Bravo. Think our young Loyola at this age. Crisis of faith that led...well, to all this. So, Daniel Quick is a senior. Lots of potential here. Passion. Intelligence. Ethical resolve. One would pray, hope, challenge....his adviser (Jesuit and/or department) would not him escape his senior year without being guided to a life of service. Many of us believe we were led here, to this grace filled place of learning. One would hope that we as academics not fail to notice and act upon the subtle signals that surface for all of our students.
Anonymous
Mon May 14 2012 15:30
Thinking rationally and reasonably is good and necessary. However, I am thinking rationally and reasonably when I make my act of faith in God. Doing so is both reasonable and rational. There is no contradiction. Where did reason and rationality come from if not from God? Unfortunately I don't think anything I write will convince you otherwise because, 1) you are not open to having your mind changed and 2) I am not articulate enough to present a strong enough case to you (I already tried). I would suggest that you watch Fr. Spitzer's talk at the University of St. Thomas. Fr. Spitzer is a very smart man. He is a Jesuit who used to be the president of Gonzaga University. He uses science and cosmology to make his case for the existence of God. He also has a book out which argues along the same lines. You can find the talk at http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/programs/ccslectures/
I just hope that you are open to the possibility that God does exist. That he does love you and that he does want to have a relationship with you.
Anonymous
Sat May 12 2012 18:56
Thinking rationally and reasonably is good and necessary. However, I am thinking rationally and reasonably when I make my act of faith in God. Doing so is both reasonable and rational. There is no contradiction. Where did reason and rationality come from if not from God? Unfortunately I don't think anything I write will convince you otherwise because, 1) you are not open to having your mind changed and 2) I am not articulate enough to present a strong enough case to you (I already tried). I would suggest that you watch Fr. Spitzer's talk at the University of St. Thomas. Fr. Spitzer is a very smart man. He is a Jesuit who used to be the president of Gonzaga University. He uses science and cosmology to make his case for the existence of God. He also has a book out which argues along the same lines. You can find the talk at http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/programs/ccslectures/
I just hope that you are open to the possibility that God does exist. That he does love you and that he does want to have a relationship with you.
Anonymous
Sat May 12 2012 18:33
I am so glad I left Loyola. If obviously is still run by communist.
Anonymous
Thu May 10 2012 13:10
The difference between George Washington and Jesus is that George Washington's existence is corroborated in thousands upon thousands of contemporary documents, and the general narrative of these documents is consistent with the material remains of archaeology. We can also dig up George Washington's bones if we really felt like it.

As far as your comparison with Aristotle, the difference between "there was this dude who said a bunch of smart things" and "there were a bunch of dudes who said a bunch of smart things and then said this imaginary dude said them" is insignificant. Aristotle's extant body of work was almost entirely reconstructed in antiquity from class notes his students took. Since you bring up his Prime Mover question, I suggest you also look into Kant's solution to the problem. Also, look up "rational" and "reasonable." These words are not the same word.

Anonymous
Thu May 10 2012 02:16
I have taken an epistemology course, at Loyola. I think YOU should take a basic Logic course because your arguments are full of red herrings and non sequiturs. You are saying.. because there is no proof of a God, and since I don't know how things originated, then there must be a God? That is a pretty weak argument, I must say. I dare you to bring that one to one of the Logic professors at Loyola and see what he says. In addition, your "reasonable" argument is equally weak. Yes, you are right.. I cannot prove that George Washington existed. I base that on the many, many physical documents, letters and details that many, many historians give me. And no, I don't know FOR SURE that the sun will rise each day. But, we have evidence and scientific understanding of the Sun, where it goes at night and why it seems to return each day. We can actually PROVE this. You CANT prove or even explain any reason as to why God exists, except for that you don't know, so it's better to believe he does than to believe that he doesn't. That would not hold up in a laboratory, I am sorry. You are also equating two things that can't be equated. Because I don't personally understand how the Sun works in detail, and you can't personally explain the existence of God, does not make each claim equal. MANY people can explain the sun in detail and there is A LOT of proof, evidence and scientific understanding about how the Sun works, which gives it a whole lot more credibility than a baseless, proof-less claim that God exists. By your logic, having faith that Aristotle existed, is enough justification that Aliens exist. Because although I can't prove Aristotle lived, you also can't prove Aliens didn't live. Or because you have faith that Obama is our president, then that makes it "reasonable" to believe that Monster's exist. You must see how pathetic that argument is. In addition to your Logic class, you should also take a History course. Because you would then learn that the story of Jesus, being born of a virgin, healing the sick, dying on a cross, resurrecting and all that... is not a story that is unique to just Jesus. That was a story going around the Mediterranean for thousand of years. The same EXACT circumstances happened to Horace, Mithra and many other "Gods" who pre-dated Jesus Christ. You really think the story of Jesus, that was handed down by a few "eye-witnesses" thousands of years ago, who lived in the desert, during the bronze age, who didn't know what a germ or an atom was or where the sun went at night, had their stories accurate? Come on, even in our digital age of 2012, we wouldn't rely on such distant word-of-mouth. But if you want to think that their records were more accurate than ours today, you go right ahead. Furthermore, even if you could prove to me that these stories were accurate (which you can't) and you could even prove to me that Jesus Christ existed and that he suspended the laws of physics and resurrected (which you can't)... It still would not prove that his teachings were moral or that he was the son of God. You would be right back where you started. You would then have to start an entirely new argument proving that his teachings were moral and that he was some sort of Holy entity. Proving that Jesus existed does not prove that he was God. You also say that because Christians died horrible deaths just to spread the word of God is another reason to believe that Jesus was God or that he was Holy. This may be one of your worst arguments yet! By that logic, all the fanatical Muslims who perform Jihad or kill in the name of God, is proof that their God exists and that he too is Holy. You think Christians are the only one who suffered and sacrificed to spread their beliefs? Of course (I would hope) that is something you certainly don't believe, but then again you don't seem to think this same logic applies to you. You seem to think these claims or analogies are weak or less justified, even though they are the EXACT same claims you are making. You are right, I have never seen a dinosaur and cannot prove that they existed. But I will agree with the consensus of the vast majority of scientists who say they did - because they have some form of evidence that seems to make pretty basic sense. Your Bible - hat has some stories in it, that are the same stories of other myths and folklore going around the region for thousand of years, passed down over centuries by a handful of people living in the desert, who did not know how fire was created or was a cloud was, and talk about a man who walked around suspending the laws of nature and performing miracles - I am sorry, I just can't get myself to take that as evidence or to persuade me. You, and obviously a billion other people can. I will continue to side with the 99% percent of scientist and intellectuals who also believe as I do and think God does not exists. Hopefully, they will continue to disprove the bible more and more every single day as they have been for...
Anonymous
Wed May 9 2012 15:23
I believe you are still trying to put faith and reason in opposition to each other. We have faith in all sorts of things that we cannot prove precisely because they are more reasonable to believe than to not believe. You want to equate reasonability with only those things which we can empirically prove. For example, you want to say that since I cannot can show you a video of Jesus ascending to heaven that it is unreasonable to believe it. However, that is not the type of proof we require for other historical events. Do you believe there was a man named George Washington? Do you believe he was a president of the US? You say "yes" because there is a TON of documentation and that it doesn't contradict your understanding of reality. You say it is more reasonable to believe than to not believe. What about Aristotle? Did he exist? Why do you believe so? There is much more documentation about Jesus than Aristotle. But you go on to say that believing in Aristotle is more reasonable. After all, there are no claims that he rose from the dead and floated to heaven. So then the bar has shifted to what is REASONABLE. So, is it more reasonable to believe in a God or not? I think it is clear that there must be a God. At its most basic level God is the explanation of our own existence. What caused the motion that started everything? What is this first mover like? How can we know what it is like? Because no effect is greater than its cause I suggest the reasonable thing to do is to look around at the world to learn about the mover. There is beauty in the world so it is reasonable that beauty is somehow associated with this mover. There is order in the world so I can know that order is associated with the mover. And all of this is on a purely natural level. I have made no truth claims based upon religion, only the knowability of God. Then come the proofs of a specific God. Was the historic Jesus real? I think that I have shown that it is more reasonable to believe that he was. Was he God......."woah, now you are making faith claims," you say. But wait, why WAS the bible so widely believed, passed on, believed? Were the early Christians acting unreasonably? Were they duped? If so, why were those who were closest to Jesus willing to die the most horrible deaths to spread the word that Jesus WAS God and DID ascend to heaven? Would it have been more reasonable to die for a truth or to perpetuate a fantastical story? I type all of this to say that when you really look deeply and without modern-doubt colored glasses you will begin to see that it is not only reasonable to believe in Jesus Christ but to see that it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe. Ultimately there is a leap of faith involved because we humans are a people of faith. We simply put our faith in what is most reasonable then we act accordingly. I have faith that my professors are teaching me the truth because it is more reasonable that I believe them than not believe them. I don't ask to see their transcripts. I have faith that the pilots who fly me home know how to fly because it is more reasonable to believe that they do than they don't. I don't ask to see their pilots license each time I get on. I have faith that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago but I have never actually seen the archeological proof, and even if I had I would have exercised faith that the records actually show what they say they show because I have no idea how to read things like that. And I believe that Jesus Christ was God because it is more reasonable to believe that he was than he wasn't. If it were more reasonable that he wasn't, I'd be a fool to believe otherwise. If you are truly interested in learning more about this (as I think you should) I highly recommend taking a class in epistemology and some basic Thomas Aquinas theology. I think you will quickly find that your understanding of faith, belief, religion, god, etc will grow by leaps and bounds.
Anonymous
Tue May 8 2012 23:41
lets throw some rational thinking in here, can we please?

Faith: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

"rather than proof" is the key phrase here. Both of you seem to think that having any sort of religious or faith based system is a good thing. I would argue that is suspends critical thinking and it seeks to fill the gaps that one can't answer, or that one can't "prove".

Let's be honest, you have no faith in Thor, Zeus, Horace, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter. If a homeless man came up to you ranting about his belief in Heady Crystals, you would probably shake your head and politely walk away murmuring "this guys crazy!" However, at the same time you give your own faith justification even though it is just as ridiculous and has just as much evidence as his heady crystals belief.

I am mainly talking about the 3 major religions here: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Although, the rest are just as crazy too.

believing that God listens to your prayers, wine turns to blood, you get 72 virgins in heaven or working on sunday is a sin...i'm sorry, but you are just as crazy as heady crystal man. You can't pick and choose the parts of religion that make more sense and say you believe in those but not the other stuff, or else your basically making up your own religion. You mentioned that the Catholic church has been involved with the sciences since it's beginning? That's not what Copernicus told me. And even if they did, how fantastically convenient. Let's all believe that the world is the center of the universe and that God created earth "special" for humans and then... once science comes around and proves that is not the case, we can just change up our doctrines, on the spot. I thought the word of God was Holy and unchanging, not an etch a sketch.

Most reasonable religion? That's like choosing to date the thinnest fat girl. It may make you feel better, but at the end of the day, your still going home with a fatty.

Basically what I am saying is that all of this "searching for the truth" and working with the sciences to figure out the "big questions" are all doable without the bells and whistles that come along with religion. Rational thinking is all you need. Of course it won't answer everything, but it won't clog your mind with other irrelevant and dumb ideas that religion tends to do. It's a straight shot right to critical thinking! You start with rational thinking... and you end with rational thinking. Let's not lose my train of thought by throwing in a story of virgin births, men living in fish, a guy resurrecting into the sky.. that's just causes a more complex version of a brain fart.

If you had NEVER read the bible before and one day you stumbled into a library and took the bible off the shelf and read it, I am confident your first thought would not be, "Wow, this is exactly what i was looking for. This make absolute sense!" Of course not, you would throw it in the garbage. Because it would seem like just another story book with crazy miracles and immoral teachings. The first 3 commandments don't even have anything to do with morals! And people base their lives on those commandments.

If you have not caught on by now, I am a non-believer. Even though I hate that word. It's like saying I am a non-astronaut or non-magician. It is unnecessary.

You can make it seem as if all religions are on equal par or that any faith is reasonable and harmless. I would argue that extreme claims require extreme evidence and that the burden of proof is on you, as well as heady crystal man.

RIP Christopher Hitchens

Anonymous
Sun May 6 2012 22:59
"There is no clear record that indicates that Mary did give birth as a virgin and her son died and was resurrected in accordance with his divine nature." Actually there IS a record of this. It is the bible. It is the most copied manuscript ever written. It is also defended, to the death, by those who lived in the era. We have far fewer manuscripts of many other historic events that we accept without any question.
Anonymous
Sun May 6 2012 13:45
Great comment. I mean the long one. I could not have said it better myself.

Daniel suffers from one big problem. He is young. When one is young the world seems a whole lot different than it really is.

Anonymous
Fri May 4 2012 20:17
Daniel, I am compelled to make a couple corrections to your article because you seem like a guy who is engaging in the "bigger questions" but you also seem to be a victim of society's ills. The first ill is relativism, that is, the belief there is no absolute truth. You are taking a position that "everyone can be right." A little probing will make clear that this position is indefensible by the use of reason. For example, the claims of Christianity (ie., Jesus IS God, He came to free us from sin, God is a trinity of persons...) are not compatible with the teachings of other faiths. Neither Judaism nor Islam believes any of those claims. So, one is right and one is wrong. You also assert that Faith can make no claims to be fact. That is just a misuse of words. A fact is simply something that is true, not necessarily provable. We have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow but we can't prove it will. Does that mean you should get ready for darkness? You can love someone but you can't prove it. Does that mean you don't love them? I believe what you meant to say is that a faith cannot make any claims that can be scientifically proven. I would generally agree with this latter qualification of faith. The distinction is a very important one and it, again, points to an ill of our society. There is a notion that religion is only a matter of faith (consisting of those things that cannot be scientifically proven). While faith is a necessary part of religion no religion with any value should be unreasonable. In fact, reasonableness should be a test of any religion. The question should be, "which religion is most reasonable?" (This is a huge question. If you are interested in answering this question I suggest "Reason to Believe" by Richard L. Purtill. He makes the case that not only is Catholicism reasonable but this it is more reasonable to believe than to not believe.) Also, a brief survey of history will show that the Catholic Church has always been heavily involved in the sciences since it's very beginning for the precise reason that it is about discovering truth. Ultimately religion is about truth. We should all be on a quest for the ultimate truth because it will inform EVERYTHING we do. It will answer "who we are," "how we should live" and "what the purpose of life is." However, if we just float through the world effectively saying, "I don't care about truth, I just don't want to offend you," then we are all just wasting our time and being idiots. As I was once told by a stranger, "when are you going to get serious?" Engage in life, don't waste it.

Anonymous: YOU should defend the Faith. I will pray for you.

Anonymous
Fri May 4 2012 15:41
I wish someone at Loyola would recognize the faith of deposit in the Catholic Church.
View full site