CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. It is such a shame that the author cannot preach what he is trying to teach! Reading the article, all that comes across is intolerance, poor humour and an attack on others beliefs. No wonder Catholics make such good targets.
   Rest assured that although I, too, as a Catholic believe in God and reject atheism, I do respect atheists' rights to critique the Catholic Church and their different beliefs. After all, we can only take the moral high ground and cast stones if we too are without sin, which we are most certainly not.
   - John

   Posted By: John M

2. As per usual, these cowardly people pick soft targets because they know we will defend the Church in a way which is non-threatening yet true.
   Why do they not also target Islam and Judaism? I'm not suggessting for one moment that they should target Islam or Judaism (they should not be targeting anyone, and I am hard pressed to figure out why they are) but we all know what the response would be, hence the title 'coward"!

   Posted By: paul

3. Well done, Greg. I spent 4 years as a Catholic chaplain at the University of Sydney (2005-2008). During that time we as a staff were regularly abused by secular/socialist/atheist students. We copped both verbal and physical abuse, as well as the constant destruction of all our advertising material. All of it was permeated by hate, hypocrisy and intolerance. 'They' always asserted their right to protest and free speech while consistently trying to deny it to others. Is it any wonder that when people like this gain political control of a nation there follows invariably political repression, economic catastrophe and mass murder? How many examples could I provide? - Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe. I could go on and on.
   Being a theist is both rational and true. I have received through Catholicism certainty as to the origins of the universe, a meaningful and fruitful life, and a purposeful end. In contrast, atheism has no philosophical explanation for the origin of the universe or why there was a 'big bang' in the first place, no explanation for how matter and energy can develop the power to understand and love, no basis to establish absolute meaning for anything, and no ultimate reason or purpose for living. In the end, atheism reduces the human to an evolutionary 'glitch on the screen' that will come and go with hardly a care or wimper. Sure, there have been many bad Catholics and other Christians, but atheism could never put forward an individual with superior teachings or philosophy than Jesus of Nazareth. For those atheists reading this, please try and respond without your useful hate and pseudo-intellectualism.

   Posted By: Robert Haddad

4. John M .... I-i-i-ts "Spot Your Contradiction Time":
   You complain that it's a shame ...
   But the author is making an observation;
   Strike the Catholics is the game
   Because what we hold is true,
   for atheists that doesn't bear deliberation
   so instead they want to bully and blue ...
   
   Apologies to all poets. Enough humour for you?

   Posted By: Chris Saidou

5. I appreciate Professor Craven's passion and sense of urgency courageously displayed in the full article.
   The 'ism' that atheists are now building could be every bit as bad as other 'isms' from the past, including anti-semitism, consumerism, communism, individuism etc.
   On the 24-hour clock of human history, our present way of life in the West occupies about five seconds. The new atheists are promoting themselves as being the full twenty-four hours, but persecuted by those who belive in a higher power. Rubbish.
   More from the Professor, please.

   Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

6. I think that Prof Craven suffers from the illness of not being politically correct. For some time, the Church has been without a lay leader who is prepared to call it as it is and is able to get comment in the public arena It is not being intolerant by telling the truth - the intolerance practisedby the interolent is not what Jesus was shy in talking about - He asked us to pray and forgive them but He did not suggest that we say nothing. Nor does it mean that some of us Catholic are blameless for many of the problems in the world, but belief in a one God is not the cause of our mistakes. Like atheasists, we are human and we make human mistakes, but our belief that a one God exists and that Jesus is the divine word of our God, is our reason to try and make the world a better place. I think that John M misunderstands what Prof. Craven says but in any event, the Professor casts no stones, he simply points out that stones exist - they can be used to build beautiful structures or used just to cast and hurt whoever they hit. When Jesus spoke to those who were to use stones to kill a human being who had done a wrong, he was talking about hypocracy - to believe in God is not being a hypocritic - but to say that you do believe and do nothing about it, is the one fact that so many professional atheists use with outstanding public exposure.

   Posted By: john santamaria

7. Professor Craven is attacking militant atheists, who he sees as simplistic, puerile and passe, but nevertheless jolly pleased with themselves.
   I don't know if the leaders of aggressive atheism hate the Catholic faith. I suspect they regard it as primitive and a barrier to people taking full responsibility for their lives, but as Father Haddad has pointed out, their followers may be much more vicious, and Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, etc need to take account of that. (And, to be fair, Dawkins has ridiculed Islamic and Jewish fundamentalism as well.)
   There are, however, increasing numbers of people in the West who have arrived after reflection at a non-theist position. Most don't make a song and dance about it. These people should not be included in criticism of militant atheists. In any case, both theists and atheists come up against the mysteries of existence and infinity. The former make the leap of faith (or logic, perhaps). The latter stop short. But neither (in my view) can really answer the question of why there is something and not nothing. That's where faith in an irreducible ground of being is required.

   Posted By: Poppenhauer

8. I can see what the author is getting at.
   But I think he's being guilty of polarisation. Suggesting that there are Catholics at one end of the field & atheists who hate them, up at the other end.
   Not true, there are many fine people who say they are atheists, who do not need to bolster their own conclusions by undermining others beliefs as a general rule.
   I have many heroes among leading scientists....who while being atheists themselves....are totally supportive of people's rights to have a belief. And who acknowledge the studies show the benefits to people of having faith. Even Richard Dawkins....if someone reads what he actually says in conversation with other scientists, is not setting out to destroy belief in God. He's against ignorance by fundamentalists who push beliefs that have been found not to stack up to reality. Oddly enough, St Augustine would agree with that.
   The atheist-type represented by Christopher Hitchens, however, selectively takes the worst of outcomes from 'religious' motivated behaviours, to say that, therefore, all religion is dangerous.
   He's caught in an error that religion works like magic (actually quite a few religious people would be the same!). And this 'magic' alone.....& not human thought, reflection & responsibility...should aways lead to perfect outcomes.
   No, Mr Hitchens, grace works thro' nature....& human nature at that. It doesn't by-pass it, via magical tricks.
   However, I was pleased to see, at the end of a forum on TV recently, at the end Chris Hitchens turned to Fr Frank Brennan & offered a handshake.
   As saying, we disagree..... but we can be gentlemen together.
   That handshake proved the point.....grace works thro' human nature. And here were two men on the opposite ends of belief, shaking hands to acknowledge respect for each other as fellow humans.
   

   Posted By: Marie H

9. Chris is just another modern day Pommie. Australians seem to be losing their touch by taking him seriously.
   The golden rule for all real ockers is to never take a Pom seriously. Lest we forget.

   Posted By: Michael Webb

10. That's right, Catholics, we atheists are "targeting" you. We will tie you to a post and burn you alive. Oh, wait, that's not us atheists, that's what you Catholics used to do to us, during your centuries-long period of moral retardation, when you both sanctioned and practiced slavery.
    

    Posted By: Pluto Animus

11. Atheists are a joke ans should not be taken seriously but with pity. I recently saw this notice board outside a Christian Church which made me smile:
    "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."
    

    Posted By: Anthony

12. On first reading of the good professor's article, I was a bit put off by the tone - it sounded a bit like Christopher Hitchens.
    On a second reading I begun to wonder if he had deliberately adopted the angry, agressive, intolerant tone common to Hitchens et al to demonstrate a point.
    Professor Craven can deny this if he wishes, but...

    Posted By: vsquared47

13. A bit of a surprise that a professor would go public with such an intemperate, belittling and indiscriminate article, memorable for its argumentum ad hominem rather than for cool dispassionate critique. The tone of exasperation makes one cringe. There seems to be an assumption that the Catholic Religion or religious belief itself should not be attacked or criticised. Yeah right.
    An excellent response to Dawkins and Hitchins was published this year: Terry Eagleton's "Reason, Faith and Revolution. Reflections on the God Debate", (Yale University Press, 2009). It nails, in a witty and learned way, the school of atheism both come from and the logical fallacies of each one's position.
    
    

    Posted By: GLawler

14. Robert Haddad: LOL, I sat in a few of the sessions offered by you and others. The self-righteousness, guest speakers routinely mocking of those that didn't share the particular point of view peculiar to the catholicsm being spruiked by your group, one speaker even (without any relevance to the topic at hand or prompted by interruption) decided that the religious studies department of the university too should be mocked.
    You really need to get some balance in your critique, Robert. You and the crew were never such martyrs. At the very worst, you were simply ignored.

    Posted By: Mark Johnson

15. All Hail Atheists! Let's repeat the 20th century with duplicates of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and many other godless heroes of Atheism. While we're at it, let's surrender our silly faith and embrace the holy trinity of Me, Myself and I with zeal & a good stiff drink like Christ-opher Hitchens.

    Posted By: Shawn

16. Dear Pluto: There would appear to be an inconsistency in your position. You are an atheist, I assume. As such, I imagine that you would agree with Richard Dawkins who states that
    "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous--indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."
    In light of this, I fail to see how there can be such thing as "moral retardation" when, in fact, the existence of objective morality can simply not be substantiated.
    Theism is the only rational position available: everything else amounts to nihilism.
    Aquinas

    Posted By: Aquinas

17. Aquinas: You apparently got your information on Dawkins from a cheat sheet.
    If you read the book, you would acknowledge that Dawkins does not deny the existence of good and evil, but states that the definitions are historically changeable and come about through gradual consensus. We currently (collectively) feel very differently about slavery, women's rights, children's rights, animal rights, etc., from how we felt about those issues 1000 or even 50 years ago. And yet the messages in various scriptures are proudly held up as having remained unchanged during this time. In what way could we have been getting moral guidance from religion?

    Posted By: BucketBoy

18. Bucketboy: You seem a little confused in two ways:
    1) Dawkins' statement is entirely incoherent: If it is true, as you say, that Dawkins says: "that the definitions are historically changeable and come about through gradual consensus" then presumably he would allow for the fact that eventually "gradual consensus" (whatever that means) may advocate murder, rape and theft and, dare I say, Christian morality in the future. Presumably, on the authority of "gradual consensus" (whatever that means), this would be quite fine since this is the ultimate benchmark of morality;
    b) In any event, Dawkin's may explain the fact but not the ought. Why should we be bound by "gradual consensus"? Why does that have the final authority in a purposeless universe? Why should the claims of Christianity be measured against "gradual consensus"? In other words, who died and made "gradual consensus" a god?
    I repeat my earlier assertion: theism is rational. Atheism is irrational and illogical.
    Aquinas
    
    

    Posted By: Aquinas

19. Pluto Animus: "That's what you Catholics used to do to us"?
    Please name one atheist Catholics ever "tied to a post and burnt alive"? As opposed to the >100 million Christians whom atheists have summarily murdered within living memory of today. No wonder we Catholics get nervous whenever we hear atheists cranking up the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Whenever they have gained power, their first priority has been to suppress and murder religious believers, especially Christians and most especially Catholics.
    Professor Craven's article is most refreshing and welcome. Most amazingly, the nation's most anti-Catholic paper published it. Perhaps to deliberately draw the hundreds of vicious and irrational Catholic-hating comments by atheists, which amply demonstrate the truth of the article.

    Posted By: Peter G

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Feature - As long as his mother's hand

   My grandson Peter died on Thursday July 26, the Feast of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus. He was sixteen weeks old, a perfect little boy. He was as long as his mother's hand, and died as soon as he was born. I am dating his life, of course, from his conception. - Marist Messenger

2. Feature - Lifelong devotion and love

   As a young child witnessing bombs dropping around him in his hometown of Prague in Czechoslovakia, Joseph Pertl dreamt of becoming a priest and devoting his life to God and helping others. - Lindy McNamara, The Southern Cross

3. Feature - Paul points the way

   Recently I have been reading Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. As we reread the Scriptures, they always seem to have a newness and freshness about them that one hasn't noticed before. That has been the case with my recent reading of Paul. The Corinthian Church, founded by Paul, had turned to him for advice on some local issues. His responses to these local issues are relevant to how we should approach contemporary issues today. - Bishop David Walker, Broken Bay News

4. Feature - New generation neither Catholic "lite" nor Catholic "Taliban"

   This new generation seems ideally positioned to address the lamentable tendency to drive a wedge between the Church's pro-life message and its peace and justice commitments. They can help us find the sane middle between two extremes: What George Weigel correctly calls "Catholicism lite," meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I've termed "Taliban Catholicism," meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn. - John L. Allen Jr, National Catholic Reporter

5. Feature - Solving the crisis in America's Catholic schools

   Today Catholic schools serve about 2.2 million students, roughly half the 1965 peak year total. There are still nearly 7,250 Catholic schools, but since 1990 over 1,300 have closed and some 300,000 pupils have been displaced. The decline is concentrated in urban communities that now are home mainly to low income, non-Catholic, minority families. - John J. DiIulio Jr, America