Vivat Agnus Dei

The argument from miracles is often presented as a proof for the existence of God. However, its strength and persuasiveness are largely dependent upon the interpretive framework of its audience. This essay will argue that while miracles can serve as powerful confirmations of belief, their value as arguments against atheism is significantly limited by the epistemological commitments of non-theists. The epistemological restraint of atheists already disallows them to consider abstract or not immediately present evidence, which is the reason they are not theists. The effectiveness of miracle-based arguments is therefore derivative of the effectiveness of arguments from experience. Even if they were presented with a miracle before them, it is likely they would assert it is just a phenomenon that science does not yet have the capability to describe, predict, or affect—or that the laws of nature do not perfectly obtain at every moment and place. Sometimes even the greatest of miracles cannot...

Pictured (color-edited with some error in the shadow): Josemaria Escrivá The atheist, materialist, and even some scientific interpretations of the "soul" differ sharply from that which the Catholic Church teaches. In the popular or materialist view, the soul is often portrayed as a "ghost in a machine," a Gnostic concept that posits the body as merely a vessel or the soul as merely a part of either the brain or mind. This misunderstanding becomes a strawman for atheists and materialists to refute, for it seems to conflict with empirical science. However, the Catholic understanding, rooted in Aristotle and perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas, presents no true quarrel with science. The Church teaches that the soul is the form of the body, constituting with it a single human nature (cf. CCC 365 , 382 ). As Aquinas beautifully articulates, "the soul is not in the body as contained by it, but rather contains the body" ( Summa Theologiae I, q. 76, a. 8 ). The soul,...

"Lay your heart into my perfect machine I will use it to protect you from me I will never let you see what’s beneath So good for you and good for me We told ourselves we’re Right where we ought to be Even you know, even you know This was all for nothing Just a sad show, just an ego" STARSET, PERFECT MACHINE Building from  Carter Carruthers, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil", Vivat Agnus Dei, May 30, 2021. We are sick of how we give, expect, and receive love, not that we shouldn't but we should question how we do it in any relationship. The song quoted above is a great allegory for how the secular world approaches love, trying to fill the cracks, holes, and wounds in our hearts. It isn't very difficult to see the connection between this and the first sin. In our every sin, whether of omission or commission, we fail in willing the good often for lack of knowing what is truly good.  First, in the first sin, we can recognize the problem as Eve ...

Fish are inedible, and there is nothing you can say or do to have me believe anything like the contrary. Am I wrong? Well, it seems people eat fish, so I guess I am wrong. Nevertheless, I very well may choose starvation instead of eating fish, despite the latter point. There are some who, in despising what relativism does, assert the opposite extreme (what we shall call "Objectivism"). However, this really creates the same general problem, placing objectivity where there is none is the same as inventing one’s own truth. The question remains what balance is there? To answer this question, we must clarify our question. Our question is fundamentally an epistemological one. How do we know what our perception of the truth and what is truth itself? Opinion and personal taste are valid independent of objective facts because they are formed of our subjectivity. But here is where the problem arises, when our fallenness is involved in forming our perspective on what is objective truth ...

What do you believe? Would you know how to answer if I asked you a question about this or that aspect of your understanding of reality and its implications? If you did, would you be able to make it simple and say it with conviction? If the above questions made you somewhat uncomfortable, it would seem you have some investigation before you. The reality is most people in the West don’t have many strong convictions about what is true except murder is wrong and the dishes should be scraped before being put in the dishwasher. They can answer how to clean their house and how to do it, but when it comes to why one should go to church on Sunday, they just shrug their shoulders and say something like, “Gotta stay churched”. Atheists live what they believe, they know why they think they are right, and they will happily throw out what they perceive to be outside the bounds of what can be felt right without religion. Are Christians as diligent about what is true? Sadly, I think the closest thing ...

Moderation in all things, including moderation, means simply that we should order the reception of goods according to just about any other criteria than our desires, we may tend in a direction in light of our desires, but we are led astray if we do not consider objective reality in our efforts. Let us also mention God calls us to love Him and there is nothing that matters any more than that relationship, then we shall love others, and then we shall be concerned with our will/desires. It should also be noted that our relationship with God and others is heavily influenced by our interior virtues and vices, thus while loving the two external entities (God and neighbor), we will have to take care of our real needs healing, sleep, food, prayer, community, etc. A proper understanding of moderation (practical acceptable variance) and our call to love rightly have one thing in common and it is what God wants which of course corresponds to what is our good (John 4:32-34, 6:38, 5:30; Luke 22:42)...