Religion is the opiate of the masses. Clearly Karl Marx had it right when he generously gave this phrase to atheists and skeptics the world around to use to take down religion. Considering how well his crowning idea worked out in practice for the betterment and freeing of mankind,
I’m curious to ask, was he right?
Is it religion that is pulling the hood over peoples’ eyes to give us false hope and giddy comfort in a harsh reality? Or could it perhaps be the other way around?
Is atheism the true opiate of the masses? I say yes.
Even the brightest atheists have not, cannot, and will not answer the question of, why is there something rather than nothing? Ask Richard Dawkins and he will say it’s silly to even ask that question. Ask Stephen Hawking and you read that, because of a law like gravity, there is not necessarily a need for a creator in order for the universe to be created. My question for him is, where did the law of gravity come from?
Is it religion that is pulling the hood over peoples’ eyes to give us false hope and giddy comfort in a harsh reality? Or could it perhaps be the other way around?
Is atheism the true opiate of the masses? I say yes.
Even the brightest atheists have not, cannot, and will not answer the question of, why is there something rather than nothing? Ask Richard Dawkins and he will say it’s silly to even ask that question. Ask Stephen Hawking and you read that, because of a law like gravity, there is not necessarily a need for a creator in order for the universe to be created. My question for him is, where did the law of gravity come from?
Scientists can keep pushing the question further back into bristling complex theories and equations, but ultimately it does nothing to give an answer.
What’s Catholicism’s take? A little something called contingency. Simply put, all matter comes from some other matter.
A book is made of paper, which comes from pulp, which comes from trees, which came from the seeds of other trees and the nutrients in the ground, etc. etc. Now expand it out a little. Where’d the earth come from? Well, from the supernova of the sun, which came from the energy, gasses, and other particles of the big bang… Where’d the big bang come from? Aha, here’s where we finally get to the root of our question, how do we have matter in the first place if the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe?
What’s Catholicism’s take? A little something called contingency. Simply put, all matter comes from some other matter.
A book is made of paper, which comes from pulp, which comes from trees, which came from the seeds of other trees and the nutrients in the ground, etc. etc. Now expand it out a little. Where’d the earth come from? Well, from the supernova of the sun, which came from the energy, gasses, and other particles of the big bang… Where’d the big bang come from? Aha, here’s where we finally get to the root of our question, how do we have matter in the first place if the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe?
The Catholic answer is this: there must be something that is not contingent, meaning that you can’t trace its origin to something that existed before it. Its very nature is to be; it is existence itself, therefore a being. That is what we mean when we say God. (Thank you St. Thomas Aquinas!)
So who’s being honest with themselves when they’re trying to grapple with the most important question of existence? The atheists? Or the believers? Even if you don’t agree with or don’t like the conclusion we come to, we’re not drugging ourselves with the easy way out that atheism provides by ignoring the best logical conclusion.
There will also be a part 2 to this where I take on my favorite of the New Atheists, Christopher Hitchens!
Written by: Marty Arlinghaus
There will also be a part 2 to this where I take on my favorite of the New Atheists, Christopher Hitchens!
Written by: Marty Arlinghaus
