Talking with atheists

There is much merit in the suggestion by England’s Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor that Catholics should seek dialogue with atheists to create some mutual understanding (as we reported last week).

Such dialogue can do much to ease suspicion, even hostility, between those who believe in God and those who reject the notion of a higher power.

The cardinal identified a point of departure for such dialogue when he pointed to a false presumption among atheists of what Catholics actually believe in. In a delicious phrase, the cardinal said: “I usually find that the god that is being rejected by [atheist campaigners] is a god I don’t believe in either.”

In other words, the cardinal suggests that such critics as Richard Dawkins are knocking down strawmen in their efforts to invalidate the Church. He does not say whether this owes to deliberate distortion or plain misreading of contemporary theology; his call for dialogue suggests an assumption that these critics simply fail to understand the faith—and faith itself.

The atheist assumption that the God Catholics believe in is effectively “one more object” in the universe — rather than the ground of and condition for its existence — in particular requires correction.

A common error resides in the demand by atheists that Christians offer scientific proof of the existence of God, which would be a reasonable demand if God was “an object”. Christian faith, however, is just that: a confidence that God does exist which requires no proof. Faith does not claim to be scientific. It is impossible to explain the source of that confidence in the terms demanded by atheists; faith in God is not expressible in scientific calculations.

Moreover, the demand for scientific proof is unreasonable when science itself does not hold all the answers. The notion that one day science will hold all answers, as some atheists claim, is in itself an act of faith.

On the subject of miracles, for example, the Catholic Church’s stringent process in reviewing reported miracles is often lumped together with the excitable claims of miracles in faith-healing churches.

As for the Catholic Church’s approval of some reported miracles — that is, inexplicable events for which there are no scientific explanations — atheists tend to reject that inexplicability by predicting that one day science will provide such answers. Perhaps it will, but stating one’s faith in that prospect is in itself “unscientific”. Some atheists fail to spot the antilogy.

Christian and atheist philosophies are embedded in such contradictory premises that it seems hopeless that one side will “win” the argument. With that in mind, the kind of dialogue Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor proposes should not be of a hostile, proselytising nature — the approach taken by the likes of Dawkins and Stephen Hawking — but seek to clarify misconceptions in a bid to establish a genuine understanding of one another’s perspectives, unclouded by distorted assumptions. This means also that Catholics understand that atheists don’t by definition “hate” God (how can one hate something one doesn’t believe to exist?)

Reaching such an understanding can have practical application. When the Church states its position on bioethical issues such as embryonic stem cell research or abortion, it will not persuade an atheist to refer to God’s law, because to the atheist there is no God and therefore no such law. The case must be stated on merits both sides can understand. (Not all atheists are intrinsically supporters of abortion; morality can exist without belief in God.)

At the same time, atheists have a tendency to interpret the Church’s position on issues such as abortion in cynically secular terms, usually equating the Church’s pro-life philosophy with its perceived suppression of women (a perception fed by actual historical suppression of women in the Church).

Such views need correction. Sincere and open dialogue may at least clear the air of the suspicion, ridicule and antagonism between Catholics and atheists.