Comments on a recent lecture by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor which had many references to atheism. On one hand, he says Catholisism is very clear on theology.

Catholic Christianity is characterised by [...] the clarity of its theology which brings theology and philosophy together and gives us an articulate intellectual expression of the knowledge born of faith[...]

On on the other, he states that God is unknowable. How can you have a clear study of a fundamentally unknowable entity? This is a contradiction.

A God who can be spoken of comfortably and clearly by human beings cannot be the true God. Si comprehendis, non est Deus, said St Augustine: ‘if you understand, it is not God’.

He accuses atheism as being a “product” of straw man logic. Does he notice that (implicit) atheism is the starting belief system of humans (i.e. babies)? The burden of proof is not on atheists to proof unbelief – Russell’s tea pot, etc.

How much of modern unbelief is a product of a facile, deductive treatment of God, so that the God who is often rejected by people is the product of our thinking rather than being God in the mystery of his life?

Also, I detected an anti postmodernist tone:

To some extent this is the effect of the privatisation of religion today: religion comes to be treated as a matter of personal need rather than as a truth that makes an unavoidable claim on us. I heard of a Muslim scholar recently who expressed an admiration for Pope Benedict on the grounds that he thought that Benedict understood exactly what religion is about. ‘Pope Benedict knows,’ he said, ‘that religion is about truth and not social cohesion.’ A very accurate remark I think.

TS Eliot once observed that it was a dangerous inversion to advocate Christianity not because of its truth, but because of its benefit.

Only a modern person would think that religion is a private matter, something the individual does in his or her solitude, but the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.

and later:

One of the things which I challenge is the desire to separate Christianity from rational inquiry

And I noticed an interesting wording in this section that ties in with existentialism and my series on the TV series B5:

His remark brings to mind that other haunting statement, so common now that I don’t know who said it first: ‘If there is no God, there is no one to tell us who we are.’

I know who I am, thanks. And that person is a non constant entity.

I also was reading about the Templeton Prize of which I generally disapprove. This is another attempt to unify Chritianity with rationality and science. If they want to play by rationality’s rules, they better stick to the rules.

Anti Citizen One