Mother Theresa Atheist?

cavedave

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml

This sounds more like someone who questions their faith then outright atheism to me. What level of doubt is allowed in a religion before you stop being of the faith? Are occasional dark nights of the soul expected? From my knowledge of the Catholic saints I would think yes. Say the question was flipped. If you started believing in God on occasion (not being an atheist when in the foxhole for example) could you really claim to be an atheist?

MoominPapa

cavedave wrote:

not being an atheist when in the foxhole for example

Bad example
IMHO

PDN

Does this mean Christopher Hitchens will now write another article saying how wonderful she was?

Zombrex

I think it is great to be honest with you. Demonstrates that one doesn't need faith to desire to do good work (yes I know there is a debate over if she was all that good)

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Does this mean Christopher Hitchens will now write another article saying how wonderful she was?

You don't think she was?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You don't think she was?

I think she was.

PDN

cavedave wrote:

If you started believing in God on occasion (not being an atheist when in the foxhole for example) could you really claim to be an atheist?

I agree with MoominPapa. The whole "no atheists in foxholes" thing is a slander. Atheists are just as capable of interfering with foxes as anyone else.

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote:

You don't think she was?

Christopher Hitches wrote an article attacking Mother Theresa a while ago, he means to ask will Hitchens change his mind in her because her doubts have emerged.

cavedave

Bad example
IMHO

I know atheists who were still atheists when in foxholes. The "no atheists in foxholes" thing is the canonical example of where and atheist might change their faith. The question is not about foxholes it is about whether you can occasionally gain faith and still be an atheist.

Dades

PDN wrote:

Atheists are just as capable of interfering with foxes as anyone else.

So true. I fed this fox a piece of crunchie two weeks ago.

Regarding Mother Teresa, of course she'll have had doubts about her faith, but I don't see selected sentences from a book of letters as being particularly telling. I'll hold judgement until I read the book (which I probably won't).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MoominPapa

cavedave wrote:

I know atheists who were still atheists when in foxholes.

Personally? What were they doing in foxholes?

cavedave wrote:

The "no atheists in foxholes" thing is the canonical example of where and atheist might change their faith.

And since atheists who have been in foxholes find it offensive and because its not true (people who use this, in general, are thiests), I reckon its a bad example. Check the wiki article

cavedave wrote:

The question is not about foxholes

:rolleyes:

cavedave wrote:

it is about whether you can occasionally gain faith and still be an atheist.

I'd say "lapsed temporarally into faith" is a better way off putting it, but then I've never been near a foxhole, honest

Talliesin

He's pretty much grasping at straws on this one.

There is indeed a lot that can be said about Mother Teresa that casts some serious doubt upon her public image.

Here though Hitchens shows himself as a fanatic at worse and someone too in love with his own investigative ability at best. Wow, you caught her in a moment of doubt, well done, what a clever boy you are, have a gold star.

The final sentence is just junk "The church decided to keep her letters, even though one of her dying wishes was that they be destroyed. Perhaps now we know why." Come again? What do we now know about the church's motives in this matter? This is the sort of nuanced non-sequitor one expects from the worse muppets on the Feedback forum. The nuance is all of some sort of conspiracy or at least spin on the part of the church, but the actions are precisely what allows the article to be written.

There are serious allegations about Mother Teresa's practice that should be investigated and the fact that her popular image prevents critical thinking does indeed say something negative about how our society forms opinions.

Hitchens' wagging his tail like a dog with a bone over such a minor matter as someone saying (possibly in a period of great surety in her faith) that she had unquestioning faith when she sometimes didn't similarly shows a lack of critical thinking. The important thing is not to investigate the life of a highly-praised figure who perhaps is not entirely deserving of that praise, but for Hitchens himself to be the one that does it, like some sort of Atheist messiah, and all molehills must be made into mountains, even though they then overshadow the very real investigative work he himself has done.

cavedave

Personally? What were they doing in foxholes?

Yes. I use "foxhole" in the sense of sitting around in a war zone in a not very protected way rather then some military definition of what a foxhole is. They were being shot at by Iraqis, well actually mainly just sitting around being scared. Sitting round being scared is the same thing theists and atheists do in such a situation so is not a characteristic of either.



I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson

cavedave

"The church decided to keep her letters, even though one of her dying wishes was that they be destroyed. Perhaps now we know why." Come again? What do we now know about the church's motives in this matter?

It could also refer to why it was mother Theresa's wish they be destroyed.As in what was her motive to have them removed.

I took the Catholic churches use of these letter to show that even saintly people have crisis of faith so ordinary folks should not feel bad about them.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote:

You don't think she was?

You may want to catch up on the whole Hitchins/Mother Thersea thing there Wicknight. As far as i know Hitchins was invited by Pope John Paul, to tesify against her (as devils adovcate), during her beatification, which Hitchins humoursly records as the time that 'he represented the devil pro bono').
He has written exstensively about her and he is less than forgivng.
Also check here
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

So that consdered I reckon PDN was being somewhat disingenuous.

Dades

Talliesin wrote:

The final sentence is just junk "The church decided to keep her letters, even though one of her dying wishes was that they be destroyed. Perhaps now we know why." Come again? What do we now know about the church's motives in this matter? This is the sort of nuanced non-sequitor one expects from the worse muppets on the Feedback forum. The nuance is all of some sort of conspiracy or at least spin on the part of the church, but the actions are precisely what allows the article to be written.

What Talliesin said!

The whole "atheists in foxholes" thing is bizzare. What does it say that a person who doesn't believe in God starts asking Him for help when in mortal danger? That deep down they really believe in God? Or that belief in God is borne out of fear of death?

Meh.

cavedave

'he represented the devil pro bono'

Gambling, drugs, porn, surely with all his business interests the devil must be able to afford legal counsel? I have always kind of believed most lawyers were working for him anyway.

stevejazzx

Talliesin wrote:

He's pretty much grasping at straws on this one.

There is indeed a lot that can be said about Mother Teresa that casts some serious doubt upon her public image.

Here though Hitchens shows himself as a fanatic at worse and someone too in love with his own investigative ability at best. Wow, you caught her in a moment of doubt, well done, what a clever boy you are, have a gold star.

The article in question isn't by Hitchins, is it?

tallesin wrote:

Hitchens' wagging his tail like a dog with a bone over such a minor matter as someone saying (possibly in a period of great surety in her faith) that she had unquestioning faith when she sometimes didn't similarly shows a lack of critical thinking. The important thing is not to investigate the life of a highly-praised figure who perhaps is not entirely deserving of that praise, but for Hitchens himself to be the one that does it, like some sort of Atheist messiah, and all molehills must be made into mountains, even though they then overshadow the very real investigative work he himself has done.

I agree with the other part of your post about church trying to cover up something, that is clearly nonsense. However I suggest you read Hitchins' book on Mother Thersea, he is damning but he presents very good arguments. He acknowledges her work but essentially labels her as a hypocrite and fraud.

stevejazzx

cavedave wrote:

Gambling, drugs, porn, surely with all his business interests the devil must be able to afford legal counsel? I have always kind of believed most lawyers were working for him anyway.

Don't froget the Devils most profitable business, religon. No tax returns...brilliant.

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

The final sentence is just junk "The church decided to keep her letters, even though one of her dying wishes was that they be destroyed. Perhaps now we know why." Come again? What do we now know about the church's motives in this matter?

I think it's just a poorly constructed sequence of clauses, and they meant to say - now we know why she wanted the letters destroyed. That article isn't by Hitchens, who writes well, whatever else one might think of him.

cavedave

Another longer article is here

"She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself."

Hitchens

Dave!

On mother Theresa........ I'm sure that quite alot of people have had moments where they struggled with their faith. Selecting these points out of her writing doesn't prove anything really.

On atheists in foxholes.......... I don't think that there's anything to that. It says more about how humans are afraid of death, and religion capitalises nicely on that. I started a thread before anticipating that I may have a death-bed "conversion" depending on my state of mind as death approaches. It's just human psychology. I'd consider the no atheists in foxholes idea as more of an argument AGAINST religion than for it, because it's another example of why humans would create these fairytales: fear.

Galvasean

I would have imagined that for every atheist to suddenly gain faith in a foxhole there would be someone of faith who basically denounced their faith. Phrases like, "What kind of god would allow this?" come to mind.

Michael G

stevejazzx wrote:

Hitchins ... acknowledges her work but essentially labels her as a hypocrite and fraud.

He doesn't acknowledge or praise her work. He is arguing from premises which are completely different from hers. He argues that by concentrating exclusively on individuals and caring for them in their suffering and death, she was diverting attention from the reasons why they had to live and die like that. His objection, as a secular humanist, is that she was reinforcing the belief (which he rejects) that injustice and suffering in this world must be seen in the context of eternity where their importance may, in fact almost certainly will, be less. He deplores her life and actions as an impediment to improving conditions in a secular world.

As other posters have said, there are many famous examples of saints who went through periods of complete disconnection from God. Disconnection from God is a very common condition, not just for people like St John of the Cross or Mother Teresa but for many others who never become famous. There are two ways of reacting to it: deciding that there was no God in the first place, or believing as she apparently did that it was the connection that was broken and struggling to find it again.

stevejazzx

Michael G wrote:

He doesn't acknowledge or praise her work. He is arguing from premises which are completely different from hers. He argues that by concentrating exclusively on individuals and caring for them in their suffering and death, she was diverting attention from the reasons why they had to live and die like that. His objection, as a secular humanist, is that she was reinforcing the belief (which he rejects) that injustice and suffering in this world must be seen in the context of eternity where their importance may, in fact almost certainly will, be less. He deplores her life and actions as an impediment to improving conditions in a secular world.

Well that's the bulk of it. But far from saying that she was evil or any such thing, he has often commented that he believes that although hypocrital(like for example prefering fancy claiforninan hospitals when she was ill) she did sacrafice her life to something she believed in. Hitchins arguments are far from being simply a raving indictment of the Mother Theresa.

Spyral

cavedave wrote:

I took the Catholic churches use of these letter to show that even saintly people have crisis of faith so ordinary folks should not feel bad about them.

correct, for example St Peter denied our Lord 3 times.. saint Augustine was a sodomite so the saints are far from perfect.. they are human like us and do things wrong as well

As for representing the devil pro bono. it means that he was arguing against her case even though they got rid of the mandatory 'devils advocate'

Fanny Cradock

Michael G wrote:

He doesn't acknowledge or praise her work. He is arguing from premises which are completely different from hers. He argues that by concentrating exclusively on individuals and caring for them in their suffering and death, she was diverting attention from the reasons why they had to live and die like that. His objection, as a secular humanist, is that she was reinforcing the belief (which he rejects) that injustice and suffering in this world must be seen in the context of eternity where their importance may, in fact almost certainly will, be less. He deplores her life and actions as an impediment to improving conditions in a secular world.

As other posters have said, there are many famous examples of saints who went through periods of complete disconnection from God. Disconnection from God is a very common condition, not just for people like St John of the Cross or Mother Teresa but for many others who never become famous. There are two ways of reacting to it: deciding that there was no God in the first place, or believing as she apparently did that it was the connection that was broken and struggling to find it again.

Not that I know a great deal about Mother Teresa or this HItchens chap, but that was well said.

faceman

Hi, im new to this forum but would like to offer my opinion. Personally i think that alot of the press coverage of this was in bad taste (sensationalism) as none of the articles allowed for any discussion about it.

Mother T was only human. She was working with the underpriviliged for most of her life. Im sure it was very difficult at times to retain a strong faith. but she is after all human. I wonder how many of the letters the media didnt highlight speak of her passion for God and the church?

A crisis of faith does not constitue atheism. She did not denounce or reject God. One of the Christianity's greatest characters, Moses, had many issues with God which are detailed in the bible.

Regardless of what Mother Teresa's personal religous beliefs were, no one can denounce the good work she did.

monkeyfudge

faceman wrote:

Regardless of what Mother Teresa's personal religous beliefs were, no one can denounce the good work she did.

I'd consider her particular religious beliefs to be quite dangerous.

Didn't she believe that poverty was a way of praising god? She never had any intent on removing people from the poverty trap and was quite happy with the status quo.

faceman

^ you have it slightly distorted. A vow of poverty differs from living in life threatening conditions. A vow of poverty is ultimately the rejection of all things material.