Mother Theresa Atheist?

cavedave

There is a discussion about this here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53820797&posted=1#post53820797

The original story is here. I think calling this level of doubt atheism is an exaggeration. If you have opinions on the role and place for doubt in faith I think the discussion on the atheism forum would benefit from your views.

PDN

A much fuller, and better written, version of the story is carried by Time: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

The "dark night of the soul" is, I understand, a fairly popular concept in Catholic mysticism (St John of the Cross etc).

This deepens my respect for Mother Theresa in that she kept on doing what was the right thing to do, and thus benefiting others, even when she herself was not deriving the personal satisfaction we might have thought.

In an age where personal ego and self-fulfillment is the be all and end all, where people hop out of marriages when the going gets tough and look for another partner, I am not surprised that shallow commentators will fail to appreciate that Mother Theresa's doubts make her actions more, rather than less, praiseworthy.

Fanny Cradock

I don't think this story particularly newsworthy other than to point out that everybody goes thought some sort of faith crisis in their life. I wonder would we be hearing quite so much about Dawkins if he revealed that he, too, had smiliar doubts in his atheist faith?

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I wonder would we be hearing quite so much about Dawkins if he revealed that he, too, had smiliar doubts in his atheist faith?

I'd say so for sure. Albeit the coverage might not be so widespread since Mother Teresa is more popular than him. Rest assured Creationists would have a field day if Dawkins expressed doubts about his atheism.

kelly1

cavedave wrote:

There is a discussion about this here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53820797&posted=1#post53820797

The original story is here. I think calling this level of doubt atheism is an exaggeration. If you have opinions on the role and place for doubt in faith I think the discussion on the atheism forum would benefit from your views.

I think God was clearly testing her faith a bit like He tested Job. There's far more merit to be gained while persevering in faith in desolation than there is while in consolation. To persevere in faith while God has apparently abandoned us shows true faith and love of God. We often cling to the good feelings we have when God consoles us and this can make us complacent and proud. God knows exactly what He's doing and His providence is always for our ultimate good.

God bless,
Noel.

Sangre

You mean doing good deeds is unrelated to religious conviction? I'm shocked.

I am not surprised that shallow commentators will fail to appreciate that Mother Theresa's doubts make her actions more, rather than less, praiseworthy.

I agree, its an often heard arguement. Although usually in an anti-theist vein i.e so if i do good things because they are right to do i'll still go to hell because i dont commit to god?

kelly1

Sangre wrote:

You mean doing good deeds is unrelated to religious conviction? I'm shocked.

Is this aimed at me? If so, I would say that all good should be done as a result of religious conviction. Our purpose is to do God's will, not our own. Doing God's will benefits everyone.

interestinguser

I would say that all good should be done as a result of religious conviction.

So hypothetical situation, you lost your faith, came to the realisation that the God of the bible is a human invention. You would stop doing good deeds?

What do you say of atheists/non-believers doing good deeds?

Our purpose is to do God's will, not our own.

Why?

PDN

Sangre wrote:

You mean doing good deeds is unrelated to religious conviction? I'm shocked.

This is, of course, totally irrelevant to the Mother Theresa situation. Mother Theresa frequently did not 'feel' the presence of God, but her faith & religious convictions remained. While her absence of feeling God's presence was prolonged, her doubts were apparently fleeting. A few temporary doubts do not an atheist make.

interestinguser

A few temporary doubts do not an atheist make.

No you are right there. You need to add a lot of things like open-mindedness, logic, intelligence etc as well.

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?

I agree tho, a crisis of faith does not constitue atheism. She did not denounce or reject God.

Sangre

I wasn't referring to her specific beliefs but rather peoples general reactions to it.

PDN

interestinguser wrote:

No you are right there. You need to add a lot of things like open-mindedness, logic, intelligence etc as well.

So all those atheists who narrow-minded, illogical, unintelligent etc. aren't real atheists?

interestinguser

So all those atheists who narrow-minded, illogical, unintelligent etc. aren't real atheists?

I've never met or spoken to atheists who would fit that description, but I suppose they are out there. To clarify, one doesn't need the qualities I mentioned to be an atheist, but a person with those qualities, who also has has an interest in religious matters, will often come to think of themselves as atheist.

PDN

interestinguser wrote:

I've never met or spoken to atheists who would fit that description, but I suppose they are out there. To clarify, one doesn't need the qualities I mentioned to be an atheist, but a person with those qualities, who also has has an interest in religious matters, will often come to think of themselves as atheist.

Your humility is astounding. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Your humility is astounding. :rolleyes:

Spoken like a 'true Christian'.

kettleishly,
Scofflaw

interestinguser

PDN wrote:

Your humility is astounding. :rolleyes:

Why thank you.
It was just an observation from my own experiences.

Mr. Presentable

kelly1 wrote:

I think God was clearly testing her faith a bit like He tested Job. There's far more merit to be gained while persevering in faith in desolation than there is while in consolation. To persevere in faith while God has apparently abandoned us shows true faith and love of God. We often cling to the good feelings we have when God consoles us and this can make us complacent and proud. God knows exactly what He's doing and His providence is always for our ultimate good.

God bless,
Noel.

I think she was merely intelligent enough to ask questions and not just blindly accept dictat like so many do. A sound women of principle and generous spirit, with humility and respect for others. A shining beacon - even if she was atheist.

skeptic griggsy

I can recognize that feeling of anomie from my atheist longings: I read theistic arguments that I felt were flimsy but could not say why.It is only when I started posting two years ago and read more that I knew where the flaws of theism were.I suspect that Teresa's dark night was psyschological like mine.Now with Christopher Hitchings,I don't find her so morally exemplarary.She raised enormous amounts of money that do not go the the needy and sick.She revel in gloryfying poverty as a means to get to God. And theV atican is going to make her a saint on the basis of invalid miracles!

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Spoken like a 'true Christian'.

kettleishly,
Scofflaw

Now,now, Scofflaw. you know that I have never made claims that Christians are more intelligent, more logical or more open minded than others. In my experience (and a quick scout of the postings on these fora confirms it) you can find stupidity, narrow-mindedness, and illogical thinking fairly easily among both theists and atheists.

The claim of "Those of my opinion are more intelligent than those of your opinion" should remain where it belongs - in the primary school playground.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Now,now, Scofflaw. you know that I have never made claims that Christians are more intelligent, more logical or more open minded than others. In my experience (and a quick scout of the postings on these fora confirms it) you can find stupidity, narrow-mindedness, and illogical thinking fairly easily among both theists and atheists.

Undeniably the case! My comment was rather more in regard to the idea that an atheist might seek to define only those with certain characteristics as atheists, and the implication that this might be some kind of special pleading on the part of the atheist. It is, of course, but that's a rather pot-and-kettle business coming from a Christian - particularly an evangelical one.

PDN wrote:

The claim of "Those of my opinion are more intelligent than those of your opinion" should remain where it belongs - in the primary school playground.

Do they really say such things in primary school playgrounds? Anyway, while it's a completely illegitimate claim, there might be some justification for atheists saying to theists "you put down the 'immoral', and we'll drop the 'intelligent'" - it seems a little unfair we should give up our favourite taunt and you get to keep yours!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Do they really say such things in primary school playgrounds?

Probably not anymore. These days the little brats are too busy comparing hoodies and stealing each other's mobile phones.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Probably not anymore. These days the little brats are too busy comparing hoodies and stealing each other's mobile phones.

I don't recall it 35 years ago either - if recollection serves, the tie-and-pebble slingshot was regarded as a far more persuasive argument.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Corksham

Padre Pio wrote also about his trials and doubts and fears, as did St.John of the Cross and others. It is not uncommon for a believer to doubt their faith from time to time, to me thats the essence of being human and accepting faith.

"But now, it has emerged that Mother Teresa was so doubtful of her own faith that she feared being a hypocrite - journalistic sensationalism."

I wonder had he taken the view - Mother Theresa gives us (believers that is ) hope in that a very pious person also had doubts means there is nothing to fear about having doubt, even the best among us are human - would he have attracted so much attention. As with alot of things in life there are more than one way of looking at things and I take comfort from her doubts.

mossieh

Corksham wrote:

Padre Pio wrote also about his trials and doubts and fears, as did St.John of the Cross and others. It is not uncommon for a believer to doubt their faith from time to time, to me thats the essence of being human and accepting faith.

"But now, it has emerged that Mother Teresa was so doubtful of her own faith that she feared being a hypocrite - journalistic sensationalism."

I wonder had he taken the view - Mother Theresa gives us (believers that is ) hope in that a very pious person also had doubts means there is nothing to fear about having doubt, even the best among us are human - would he have attracted so much attention. As with alot of things in life there are more than one way of looking at things and I take comfort from her doubts.

It's a catch-22 though, isn't it?

Person A has strong faith, no doubts whatsoever = a great christian
Person B has faith but occasionally doubts = an even greater christian(for living with their doubts)

Mother Theresa does deserve praise from christians in a perverse kind of way as her doubts were strong enough for her to articulate them to someone else but she was still able to pretend otherwise to the general public.

What a pro.

Corksham

mossieh wrote:

It's a catch-22 though, isn't it?

Person A has strong faith, no doubts whatsoever = a great christian
Person B has faith but occasionally doubts = an even greater christian(for living with their doubts)

-your words/ idea not mine

Mother Theresa does deserve praise from christians in a perverse kind of way as her doubts were strong enough for her to articulate them to someone else but she was still able to pretend otherwise to the general public.

What a pro.

- to me a life of action serving the poor and needy speak louder than any words, hard to pretend for 60 years. Her actions were a result of her faith imo

She also said the following:

Like Jesus we belong to the world living not for ourselves but for others. The joy of the Lord is our strength
Keeps close to Jesus he loves you, let us pray god bless you

Quotes such and these and many beside could have been added to offer a more balanced view of her

faceman

mossieh wrote:

It's a catch-22 though, isn't it?

Person A has strong faith, no doubts whatsoever = a great christian
Person B has faith but occasionally doubts = an even greater christian(for living with their doubts)

not sure i get your point here?

wrote:

Mother Theresa does deserve praise from christians in a perverse kind of way as her doubts were strong enough for her to articulate them to someone else but she was still able to pretend otherwise to the general public.

What a pro.

what was she pretending?

cavedave

kelly1
I think God was clearly testing her faith a bit like He tested Job

Does the idea of a prankster God not kind of worry you?
Isn't God in the book of Job a psychopath who tortures a good man and murders his family just to win a bet?
http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_5/episode_506/epi506script
Read the part from "[begins the story. A Middle Eastern scene appears] You see, "

Gerald: God said to Sata, "See? I told you. Job still praises me." [all that is heard after that is the sound of the heart monitor attached to Kyle.]
Kyle: [a few seconds later] And that's it? That's the end?
Sheila: Basically.
Kyle: That's the most horrible story I've ever heard. Why would God do such a horrible thing to a good person just to prove a point to Satan?
Gerald: Oh. Uhhh, I don't know.
Kyle: Then I was right. Job has all his children killed, and Michael Bay gets to keep making movies. There isn't a God.

mossieh

faceman wrote:

not sure i get your point here?

The point is that apparently there's no difference between a christian who doubts and one who doesn't except in this instance where her willingness to ignore her doubts somehow makes her more worthy. This to me seems bizarre. The most fundamental requirement for being a member of the christian community is that you believe in god.

faceman wrote:

what was she pretending?

She publicly worshipped god but secretly doubted his existence.

I have no particular axe to grind with the woman but this does strike me as hypocritical.

MooseJam

I've heard Mr Dawkins decrying Ms Theresa on a number of occasions, he wasn't specific, just mentioned that she was a bad person or not a Saint if I remember correctly, anyone know what she did to deserve ?

Scofflaw

mossieh wrote:

The point is that apparently there's no difference between a christian who doubts and one who doesn't except in this instance where her willingness to ignore her doubts somehow makes her more worthy. This to me seems bizarre. The most fundamental requirement for being a member of the christian community is that you believe in god.

She publicly worshipped god but secretly doubted his existence.

I have no particular axe to grind with the woman but this does strike me as hypocritical.

Why? Doubt is an integral part of the Christian faith - I can't answer on other faiths, but the story of Doubting Thomas is a cornerstone of Christianity. The Christian is almost expected to doubt.

I have no trouble declaring myself an atheist, and I've been one for 35 years through thick and thin, but that doesn't mean I'm possessed by a constant, unshakable, rock-solid conviction of my correctness...I'm aware that some atheists have such conviction, but I think that's just the kind of people they are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

I've heard Mr Dawkins decrying Ms Theresa on a number of occasions, he wasn't specific, just mentioned that she was a bad person or not a Saint if I remember correctly, anyone know what she did to deserve ?

This might be relevant:

Rationalist International wrote:

"India, especially Calcutta, is seen as the main beneficiary of Mother Teresa's legendary 'good work' for the poor that made her the most famous Catholic of our times, a Nobel Peace Prize Winner and a living saint. Evaluating what she has actually done here, I think, India has no reason to be grateful to her", said Sanal Edamaruku, Secretary General of the Indian Rationalist Association and President of Rationalist International in a statement on the occasion of her beatification today. The statement continues: Mother Teresa has given a bad name to Calcutta, painting the beautiful, interesting, lively and culturally rich Indian metropolis in the colors of dirt, misery, hopelessness and death. Styled into the big gutter, it became the famous backdrop for her very special charitable work. Her order is only one among more than 200 charitable organizations, which try to help the slum-dwellers of Calcutta to build a better future. It is locally not very visible or active. But tall claims like the absolutely baseless story of her slum school for 5000 children have brought enormous international publicity to her institutions. And enormous donations!

Mother Teresa has collected many, many millions (some say: billions) of Dollars in the name of India's paupers (and many, many more in the name of paupers in the other "gutters" of the world). Where did all this money go? It is surely not used to improve the lot of those, for whom it was meant. The nuns would hand out some bowls of soup to them and offer shelter and care to some of the sick and suffering. The richest order in the world is not very generous, as it wants to teach them the charm of poverty. "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering," said Mother Teresa. Do we have to be grateful for this lecture of an eccentric billionaire?

The legend of her Homes for the Dying has moved the world to tears. Reality, however, is scandalous: In the overcrowded and primitive little homes, many patients have to share a bed with others. Though there are many suffering from tuberculosis, AIDS and other highly infectious illnesses, hygiene is no concern. The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."

When Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Price, she used the opportunity of her worldwide telecast speech in Oslo to declare abortion the greatest evil in the world and to launch a fiery call against population control. Her charitable work, she admitted, was only part of her big fight against abortion and population control. This fundamentalist position is a slap in the face of India and other Third World Countries, where population control is one of the main keys for development and progress and social transformation. Do we have to be grateful to Mother Teresa for leading this worldwide propagandist fight against us with the money she collected in our name?

Mother Teresa did not serve the poor in Calcutta, she served the rich in the West. She helped them to overcome their bad conscience by taking billions of Dollars from them. Some of her donors were dictators and criminals, who tried to white wash their dirty vests. Mother Teresa revered them for a price. Most of her supporters, however, were honest people with good intentions and a warm heart, who fall for the illusion that the "Saint of the Gutter" was there to wipe away all tears and end all misery and undo all injustice in the world. Those in love with an illusion often refuse to see reality.

The recipients of Rationalist International Bulletin may publish, post, forward or reproduce articles and reports from it, acknowledging the source, Rationalist International Bulletin # 115.

In summary, she has fiddled while Rome burned, if you like - diverted millions of dollars from rational solutions to poverty into badly-conceived "good works" of temporary benefit to the individual poor, because she does not see poverty as an ill, but a good. A little bit like someone urging people to give their fivers to addicts on the street instead of supporting social programs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mossieh

Scofflaw wrote:

Why? Doubt is an integral part of the Christian faith - I can't answer on other faiths, but the story of Doubting Thomas is a cornerstone of Christianity. The Christian is almost expected to doubt.

I have no trouble declaring myself an atheist, and I've been one for 35 years through thick and thin, but that doesn't mean I'm possessed by a constant, unshakable, rock-solid conviction of my correctness...I'm aware that some atheists have such conviction, but I think that's just the kind of people they are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I hear very little expression of doubt from most of the christian posters on here. Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect. It seems strange that in Mother Theresa it's seen as a virtue but boards remains a doubt-free zone.

Fanny Cradock

mossieh wrote:

I hear very little expression of doubt from most of the christian posters on here. Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect. It seems strange that in Mother Theresa it's seen as a virtue but boards remains a doubt-free zone.

Ignoring your 'verifiable evidence' clap-trap, have you ever asked?

Scofflaw

mossieh wrote:

I hear very little expression of doubt from most of the christian posters on here. Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect. It seems strange that in Mother Theresa it's seen as a virtue but boards remains a doubt-free zone.

I would imagine that most of our Christian posters do suffer from doubt from time to time - but I'm not sure they're going to suddenly come out with them in the middle of an argument with an atheist. Indeed, I don't know whether many posters would feel very comfortable discussing their doubts in front of an audience that includes quite so many outspoken atheists, or knowing that their doubts may be taken down and used in evidence against them.

I don't know whether there is really an analogous position for atheists. Sure, I have doubts, but Christianity is only one of a very large number of possible alternative religious positions which I might consider when I feel doubtful, and certainly isn't one that actually causes me any doubt - whereas doubting the existence of God really only leads one direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mossieh

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Ignoring your 'verifiable evidence' clap-trap, have you ever asked?

Have I ever asked what?

Hmmm...'verifiable evidence clap-trap'....have you read the creationist thread lately?
Using the above-mentioned thread as an example, have a look at the posts there from the christian posters. even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they do not budge an inch from their creationist position. Doubt does not appear to be an option.

Everybody has doubts about some aspect of their beliefs, unquestionably, but not everyone is an evangelist/preacher/religious leader. If those people are suffering from doubts over their faith, they really should consider their position.

How would you feel about accepting lifestyle guidance from someone if you knew that they themselves thought it was possibly a load of cráp?

To put it simply, to preach when you're doubtful about the truth of what you're preaching is hypocrisy.

BrianCalgary

mossieh wrote:

I hear very little expression of doubt from most of the christian posters on here. Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect. It seems strange that in Mother Theresa it's seen as a virtue but boards remains a doubt-free zone.

Scofflaw has hit it right on. We all have moments of what I call 'what if?' Meaning what if I am wrong? and there is nothing. This has reared it's ugly head many a time since we found out my son has to have open heart surgery.

His mortality is striking me right in the face. If the operation were to go wrong and we lost him, I know that I would see him again in HEaven and be able to hang out for ever. Yet the dreaded 'what if?" sneaks in. I will be quite open about it, yet I am not going to stop preaching salvation through Christ, because I do know it to be true, in spite of the darkness that creeps in from time to time.

Your comment 'Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect.'

No one has ever shown that there is no God. What has been shown over on teh creation thread is a discussion on how everything began. The scientists have implied time and time again that (I paraphrase here folks) science and teh study of origins does not prove nor disprove a god of any sort, it just observes and reports on the physiacal evidence. The argument could just as easily be did God do it as Genesis state or did He do it over a lengthy period of tiem?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your comment 'Even in the face of verifiable evidence that the views they hold are incorrect.'

No one has ever shown that there is no God. What has been shown over on teh creation thread is a discussion on how everything began. The scientists have implied time and time again that (I paraphrase here folks) science and teh study of origins does not prove nor disprove a god of any sort, it just observes and reports on the physiacal evidence. The argument could just as easily be did God do it as Genesis state or did He do it over a lengthy period of tiem?

Quite true - that entire thread revolves around the scientific correctness of the Genesis account, and the evidence for evolution. As to the actual origin of life - currently we don't have a scientific explanation for that, and we certainly have no way, in such great deeps of time, of stating that there was no intervention of any kind.

What we can state is that God has never been scientifically observed to intervene in any way that could be told apart from natural causation - which is to say that when we remove what is known from any apparent intervention, nothing is left to require further explanation. To claim that this disproves God is incorrect - at best it proves the absence of a currently interventionist God.

Thus, no matter how good an explanation of abiogenesis we come up with, we will never be able to state with certainty that God did not intervene, on Earth, in the beginnings of life - all we can state is that there is no need for such intervention, that we have no evidence for such intervention, and that the theory of a non-interventionist deity satisfactorily explains both the current absence of intervention and the lack of necessity for intervention in the formation of life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mossieh

Scofflaw wrote:

we will never be able to state with certainty that God did not intervene, on Earth, in the beginnings of life - all we can state is that there is no need for such intervention, that we have no evidence for such intervention

Quite true, but I have yet to hear a christian on that thread concede this point, presumably it is an assumption too far.

Scofflaw

mossieh wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

we will never be able to state with certainty that God did not intervene, on Earth, in the beginnings of life - all we can state is that there is no need for such intervention, that we have no evidence for such intervention

Quite true, but I have yet to hear a christian on that thread concede this point, presumably it is an assumption too far.

Well, to the Christian there is a need for intervention, and proof of intervention in the form of the special place of Mankind and the existence of the soul.

We will simply be stating that we have an explanation that neither requires such intervention, nor shows any evidence of it - assuming that we do puzzle out a scientific explanation of abiogenesis that seems satisfactory.

Even then, we still have no way of knowing that the entire Universe isn't God-powered at the most basic level, because we still have no definitely-godless control universe to compare ours to. For all we know God guides the course of history by flexing His quarks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DublinWriter

PDN wrote:

This deepens my respect for Mother Theresa in that she kept on doing what was the right thing to do, and thus benefiting others, even when she herself was not deriving the personal satisfaction we might have thought.

I think it would be more true to say that she kept on doing what she thought was the right thing to do.

While I admire her compassion and humanity, I really find myself at odds with her stance for refusing to allow birth-control into one of the poorest and over-populated areas of the globe.

faceman

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

lets not take the moral highground, she did more good in a month than most of us could do in a lifetime. It really shows what society has become when exploitation of people's flaw becomes an event of worship. Have we sung so low to thrive in it?

Answers on a postcard please....

PDN

DublinWriter wrote:

I think it would be more true to say that she kept on doing what she thought was the right thing to do.

While I admire her compassion and humanity, I really find myself at odds with her stance for refusing to allow birth-control into one of the poorest and over-populated areas of the globe.

Er, she was a charity worker, not Prime Minister. She had no power to allow or to disallow birth control anywhere.

robindch

PDN wrote:

She had no power to allow or to disallow birth control anywhere.

Not by state mandate, she wasn't. But she was given free reign -- as catholic schools still are in Ireland, and innumerable federally-funded christian-administered programs in the USA and many other places -- to propagate the message that contraception is a Bad Thing and To Be Avoided at all costs lest one risk one's eternal soul. You can find references here and I'm sure a more thorough search will produce better ones.