The Problem
In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle points out a strange fact about humans: we often know what is right, and desire to do what is right, and then don’t. We actually tend to do the exact opposite – to revel in the things that are worst for us, cease to even try to do good, and instead dance to our own demise. In other words: something’s wrong here. Something’s broken. Some cog in the human machine doesn’t turn the way it’s supposed to. We see the results of this every day, everywhere: war, injustice, poverty, crime, hatred, greed, objectification – there are days we may look at the world and look at ourselves and see very little worth salvaging. How ought we respond to this strange predicament? What are we supposed to do about all the evil out there when we can hardly even control ourselves?
Hope
Hope is looking forward to something with confidence.
Hope changes everything about how we live, and what we live for. A man’s honest answer to the question “what do you hope for?” tells you nearly everything about him. Considering our strange predicament, what should we hope for? Some would say nothing; there is no answer and no purpose, this is all just a random cosmic occurrence, life is brutal and short, and that’s all there is to it. Some would say the best you can do is enjoy it while you’re here and not worry too much about it. Others would say our problem is the physical realm itself, and that we need to escape these lowly bodies of ours and enter into a spiritual realm. Others would say we should hope to escape a cycle of rebirths, but still others would say we should learn to live in harmony with rebirth. But do any of these inspire confidence? Where should our confidence come from? Where should we dare to place our hope?
Sanity
Sanity is acting rationally in response to reality. This requires two things of us; that what we believe about reality is true, and that we act accordingly. If an atheist behaves as if there is no God, but there is, then he is not acting like a sane person ought to act. On the other hand, if a devout monk acts as if there is a God, but there is not, then he is not acting like a sane person ought to act. Behavior consistent with either belief is only justified if the belief is true. What we believe our existence is all about is no trivial matter. Surely, nothing could be more important than understanding this, since this concerns the whole of life, not just a portion? There’s no sitting it out; not-choosing is a choice. Further, there’s really no margin for error; one must be as certain as possible that their hope is sane, otherwise they risk living their entire life in a state of incurable folly. What could be worse?
If you’re taking my words seriously, this idea may cause you anxiety. You, like many, may be under the impression that the answer cannot be known with any measure of certitude, and that our hope and our sanity rely on a cosmic roulette of birthplace and indoctrination. But this is not so. We can, using simple logical deductions and uncontroversial pieces of evidence, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists and that the Catholic Church is the true Church He established. We can even do it rather pithily:
True God
We see things around us which depend on other things in manifold ways. Take a seed for example. A seed depends on other things for its mere existence (namely cells, molecules, atoms); it depends on the natural order to compel it to act (namely, to produce a tree); it depends on external changers to change it (namely, the sun and rain causing it to grow). But if all things were dependent on external sources for existence, order, and action, nothing could ever exist, cohere, nor act. It is quite like how an infinite chain of extension cords could never power a television. We must, then, propose a terminus – something which exists without condition, which orders without some prior ordering force, and which moves all things without moving or changing; a foundation upon which reality rests, a force of ultimate primordiality, an Author of all things. This, we call God. His name – “I AM” – describes His nature (Ex. 3:14).
Now, clearly this Author created us with a thirst for Him. Man is a conscious, rational creature; he cannot help but hope, and he cannot help but subordinate all his hopes to some highest hope, and the only hope which satisfies him is God. Any “highest hope” besides God – money, power, pleasure, honor, escape – leads to nothing but emptiness, distress, anxiety, addiction, disorientation, and boredom. As hunger proves that man must possess food in order to live, so our unquenchable thirst for the infinite proves we must possess God in order to live fully. He is the only hope which satisfies us. Without Him, there is no sanity. But who is He? How do we find Him? The simple answer is that we cannot. The history of manmade religion – human sacrifice, ritual torture, and many other unspeakable horrors prove we have a very confused estimation of the divine. No, we cannot find God; if we are to receive God, it is only possible if God chooses to find us.
“I am the way and the truth and the life.”
No teacher had ever spoken as Jesus of Nazareth did. At best, some claimed to know the way. None claimed to be the way. Some claimed to know God. He claimed to be God; “Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM” (Jn. 8:58). His Apostles – the men he taught and sent to carry His message to the ends of the earth – knew this. He proved it with innumerable public signs and miracles, the greatest of which was His resurrection from the dead. Is it possible they made it all up? Hardly. None of them gained anything from the Gospel but death; even the most hard-nosed scholars accept that Peter, Paul, and James – eyewitnesses to all this, not just believers – died for the Gospel. What liar would not recant to save himself from the headsman? Christian tradition says the rest of the eyewitnesses did likewise, and we have no evidence contradicting this. Is it possible, then, that they were all hallucinating? Again, no; multiple men attested to the risen Jesus eating and drinking with them, together, for 50 days before ascending to Heaven. Is it possible a legend simply formed around this mysterious Jesus? Again, hardly. Even atheists like Bart Ehrman aren’t shy about dating the Gospels within living memory of Christ, and likewise with Paul’s epistles. Legends don’t form around people whom the public remembers. Knowing this, Paul challenges anyone who doubts Christ’s resurrection to simply come to Jerusalem and ask what happened, as hundreds were alive who had seen Him risen (1 Cor. 15).
True Religion
Now, what is this message that Christ gave His Apostles to give to us? That He purchased our salvation by His death on the cross. That if we repent, believe, and work against the evils of this world through His Church, He will restore us to life after death in a resurrection like His own. Sounds nice, but there are many forms of Christianity; how do we know which is the true “Church of the living God, the foundation and pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)? Recall Aristotle’s point about our behavior in the introduction; the very problem He came to solve is that we’re foolish, corrupted and dulled by the stain of sin. Would a wise lawgiver, seeing a degenerate populace, seek to remedy their degeneracy by giving each of them command of the law? Certainly not; this is why Christ, the wise King, established the Apostles and their successors as His judges on earth, giving them both unquestionable authority – “whatever you [Apostles] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” and divine protection from dogmatic error – “I will send… the Spirit of truth [to] abide forever… [and] teach you all things” (Matt. 18, John 14).
But a problem remains – there are many Apostles! And though they receive divine protection as a unified body, some may separate themselves from that body, as Judas did. Would a wise lawgiver, seeing that an appellate court may act contrary to another appellate court, fail to erect a singular court of last appeal? Certainly not; and Christ did exactly this. He said to the Apostle Simon, while standing before a rock upon which a city was built, “[I name you] Peter (Petros; Rock), and on this rock (petros) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19). Christ promises Peter both singular authority and singular protection from error, such that Hell can never prevail over the Church. We see even stronger expressions of this commission in John’s Gospel, though I will save those for another page for the sake of brevity.
The early Church understood the importance of Peter’s divinely instituted role as Bishop of Rome – that is, the Pope. Church history contains countless examples of saints and fathers affirming this interpretation of Matthew 16 – for example, St. Jerome (who translated the original Biblical canon) responding to a letter from the Pope with, “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but the chair of Peter. This is the rock on which the Church [was] built.” We have countless examples of Rome being used and explicitly designated as court of last appeal, a particularly early and explicit example being the Council of Sardica. For a particularly forceful example of these ideas at work, we can look to Pope Agatho’s letter to the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople: “Peter… received… the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under [his] protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth… according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior Himself [to Peter, that his] faith should not fail [and that he should] strengthen his brethren, [as my predecessors have done, and now I do] by divine designation.” The Council, representing the whole Church, responded: “we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles.”
Read On
Now, I doubt that many who started reading this page as avowed atheists would consider themselves Catholic converts by the time they reach this sentence. My hope is that I’ve managed to intrigue you, to challenge you, and to present a view of reality which – if strange – is nonetheless plausible, so that you might be interested in learning more. What you’ve just read is a skim of what’s available in much more depth across the three sections of this site:
The first is an analysis of the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. This includes a formal argument for the existence of God.
The second is an analysis of all the world’s belief systems, categorized under umbrellas, for the purpose of systematic evaluation and refutation or approbation. This includes explanations of what the world religions are and deep analyses of each of them, replete with hyperlinked citations.
The third examines certain topics in the spiritual life which often confuse people. Suppose you believe in God – why pray? Is prayer just asking for your car keys when they’re missing? What really is sin? How could free will coexist with an omnipotent God?
You can also check out my YouTube channel for video-formatted versions of these arguments. If you find my work valuable and helpful, the best way to show your appreciation is to spread the word, either by passing it along to friends and family, or purchasing some of my merchandise (I do not make any profit off these items; they exist solely to help advertise this site and what it stands for).
You may not agree with all of my ideas, but I think you’ll leave here a little more hopeful, and a little more sane.
Enjoy.