Follow usTwitterFacebook


05 Dec 2014 Q&A No comments

Can our friend, an Orthodox Christian, be our child's godfather?

Full Question My husband would like to ask a good friend who is an Eastern Orthodox Christian to be the godfather for our expected child. Will Church law a…

Read more

29 Jul 2016 Europe News USA Vatican No comments

Pope creates new eparchy in Preston for Syro-Malabar Catholics

Catholics of the Syro-Malabar rite will gain a new kind of leadership structure in Britain, with the creation by the Pope of a new eparchy based in Preston.…

Read more

04 Sep 2015 Europe News No comments

Retired bishop assaulted by passenger on a train in Ireland

Bishop Emeritus of Kerry said to be very shaken by the incident Bishop Emeritus Bill Murphy of Kerry was punched in the face last month by a drunken passenge…

Read more

10 Sep 2015 News Vatican Comments (2)

The Pope's annulment move? It's a good thing, Vatican official says

A member of the Vatican council charged with interpreting Church law says the increased role of bishops in the annulment process is a positive step that will en…

Read more

30 Aug 2014 USA Comments (2)

PBS raked over decision to air late-term abortion film

Washington D.C., Aug 30, 2014 / 02:35 pm.- Pro-life advocates have strongly objected to PBS' decision broadcast the documentary “After Tiller,” saying it wrongl…

Read more

20 Feb 2015 Articles Comments (9)

Eucharistic Miracles: Evidence of the Real Presence

At every Catholic Mass, following the command of Jesus himself, the celebrant raises the host and says, "Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is my body,…

Read more

04 Aug 2016 News No comments

Make Oscar Romero a patron saint of WYD 2016, says Panamanian bishop

The martyr, who was assassinated while celebrating Mass, is suggested as patron saint at WYD to be held in Panama A bishop from Panama, where World Youth Day 2…

Read more

11 Sep 2015 News USA No comments

After fire damages Indianapolis church, archbishop asks for prayers

A fire badly damaged St. Monica Catholic Church in northwest Indianapolis overnight on Wednesday. “Please pray for the parish of St. Monica,” Archbishop Jose…

Read more

23 Mar 2016 News United Kingdom No comments

Bishop Mark Davies speaks about the “Reality of the Eucharist”

The Rt. Rev Mark Davies, Bishop of Shrewsbury in a sermon preached at the annual Mass of Chrism told priests that new vocations to the priesthood can only be fo…

Read more
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Atheists Are Closer to God Than They Think

My family believed in kindness, loving, and being the best people we could be. We were also atheists. Because of this belief system, we believed that we had a duty to act in the most moral, ethical way—after all, we weren’t bound by the arbitrary rules of some book or church for our understanding of right and wrong. Our moral code was based on a pure pursuit of goodness.

“We don’t have to look in a book to see if it says that we should be nice to people,” my father would say. “We can just do it out of the goodness of our hearts.”

Like most young people, at college I began to explore the belief system my family had taught me and to make it my own. Inside the classrooms of my secular university, my beliefs weren’t challenged in the slightest. Outside the classrooms, however, I ran into difficulty.

Cracks in the Foundation

I had always considered the moral code by which I’d been raised to be rock-solid: We formed our understanding of rights and wrongs based on reason, evidence, and the scientific method; we sought the greatest good for all humans out of pure empathy and compassion—not as some attempt to curry favor with supernatural beings. Yet the more I pushed on these assumptions, the more I found that my “rock-solid” moral code had some cracks in it, and they ran deep.

One afternoon I read an article by a professor who posited that since adult pigs are more intelligent and aware than newborn babies, it would be more ethical to kill an infant than a pig. I scoffed. But when I tried to combat the professor’s ideas, I quickly ran into problems. I had always assumed that the only reason that humans were more valuable than other animals was because we’re more intelligent and self-aware, yet what did that mean for infants or the severely mentally disabled? Would that not mean that they were less valuable than the rest of us, perhaps even less valuable than some animals?

I met with similar problems when a classmate made the shocking statement that richer countries should stop sending aid to poverty-stricken areas of the world, explaining that it diluted the gene pool and added more suffering to the world to allow societies to survive who were not able to take care of themselves. I found this statement, too, to be morally repugnant. But, once again, my counterargument was weak.

Looking at the evidence from the natural world, I could reason that there are evolutionary advantages to showing compassion to others, or that as social creatures we’ve developed a nervous system that makes us more happy when the societies around us are stable and harmonious. However, the gaping hole in my argument was that those were not the only viewpoints that reason and evidence could support: An equally strong case could be made that the most important goal of any species is to pass on only the best and most fit genes, so that its members will thrive well into future generations. Combining this argument with the assumption that a life of suffering is not a life worth living, my classmate made a disturbingly coherent argument that it would be best to let those who were not capable of surviving simply die off.

No Ought from Is

Later in life I would hear author John C. Wright make a critique of secular morality in which he quipped, “You cannot deduce an oughtfrom an is.” I wish I’d heard it back then, because that was the problem. I’d hit up against a hard, inconvenient truth—that the material world does not gives us moral absolutes: It gives us ises, notoughts. Sure, I could reason that we should seek the greatest level of happiness for all human beings, based on the assumption that happiness was humanity’s highest goal, but—also using evidence and reason—someone could argue just as well for a more ruthless worldview that members of the species who were weaker or less able to display intelligence were less worthy of life.

All the while, when I encountered views like my classmate’s or the professor’s or countless others, a part of me wanted to scream, “You don’t kill newborn infants or ignore people in need because that’s justwrong!” All this cool, detached analysis of how we should treat our fellow human beings based on what stood up to the scientific method fell nauseatingly short of capturing the intense feelings that boiled within me when I pondered such matters. I sensed that there was absolute right and wrong in these matters, and that it was external to any human opinion.

After countless conversations with fellow atheists, the issue of the impossibility of getting to an absolute ought from the ises of the material world alone—and the chilling implications that had for any kind of moral code—remained unresolved. Eventually, all my big questions got pushed under the rugs of work and socializing, and it would be years before I thought about them again. I built a comfortable life for myself that left me too busy to ponder such inconvenient questions.

Just Tell Me the Truth

All that changed, however, when my first child was born. Staring at this precious little life shocked me into digging up all those long-forgotten questions about meaning and morality, and to ask some more to boot. And this time, something was different: For the first time in my life, I was willing to ask the big questions with humility. Back in college I’d approached all discussion of these subjects with a heavy dose of pride. But one look at my newborn son was enough to change my motives entirely. I didn’t care if I looked stupid. I just wanted to know what was true.

I set out on a search to find out what was at the root of that mysterious sense I’d always had that there is one moral code out there, and that it’s extant and true regardless of human opinion. It was impossible to avoid religion when studying this subject matter, and one day while looking for books about Buddhism I stumbled across some Christian authors who laid out a historical case for Jesus being who he said he was and the Resurrection having actually happened. I was surprised and intrigued to hear a reasonable, logical case for the founding of this religion. Only a few months earlier I would have flatly blown off any such notions as impossible since I refused to consider anything supernatural, but this time I was willing to hear more. I’d realized that we atheists certainly were far from having it all figured out, so I decided to suspend my assumptions for a while and just read a few books by Christians.


As my bedside table piled up with books by authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and St. Augustine of Hippo, I slowly began to see that this religion was not what I’d perceived it to be. Though I was increasingly impressed, I also ran into some big problems. For one thing, I could not make heads or tails of the Bible. Without any Christian background, I had no idea how to interpret it—and when I researched Christian answers, it seemed like there were as many interpretations as there were people. Also, it seemed that the notion that the Bible was the main way to know God would be fundamentally unfair to people who were illiterate or had poor reading-comprehension skills—a concerning proposition considering that the printing press and widespread literacy are relatively recent phenomena.

I wasn’t quite ready to give up on Christianity, but I didn’t know any practicing Christians, so I had almost nobody to talk to about all these issues. I decided to start a blog to see if I could find any Christians who could answer some of my questions. After a few months of discussions with readers in which I threw out every tough question I could think of, I began to notice that the Catholics had the most compelling defenses of everything from the scientific case for God to the accuracy of the New Testament stories to the Christian moral code. Though obviously I would never become Catholic since I “knew” that it was a superstitious belief system founded on a corrupt Church that had done a lot of bad things throughout history, I couldn’t deny that the Catholic worldview was insightful and intellectually consistent.

On the advice of the Catholics from my blog, I decided to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Once I read it, I never saw the world the same way again. I pored over these teachings and marveled at how they resolved so many questions I had—everything from the meaning of life to how we can know there’s a God to how to interpret the Bible. I shared what I found with my husband, a lapsed Baptist with anti-Catholic views of his own, and we both agreed: This was too consistent, too wise, too prescient, too perfect to have come from human beings. This Church claimed to be guided in its teachings by Something far above humans, and we were both starting to believe that this just might be true. After beginning to apply these teachings to our own lives, as well as spending a couple years devouring stacks of books that addressed everything from Catholic teaching on contraception to the Crusades to the popes who committed immoral acts, we were completely convinced. My husband and I both entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil in 2007.

Written on Our Hearts

What I found was that the Catholic Church offered a perfect articulation of the moral code that’s written on the human heart, that unshakable sense of right and wrong I’d been aware of all along—and what had initially seemed to be a confining set of arbitrary rules was actually a prescription for living a life optimized on love. To my great surprise, I found that Catholicism was not as much a departure from the atheistic belief system I’d grown up with as it was an elaboration and fulfillment of it. I’d merely followed all those longings I felt for things like truth, beauty, justice, and peace and found that they had a source—a living, personal Source.

Most atheists are closer than they think to believing in God. I think of the atheists I know who are so dedicated to living a life of love, kindness, and empathy that if it were scientifically proven tomorrow that these things were neither beneficial to the individual nor to society, my guess is that they would still live lives of love, kindness, and empathy. They believe that if these things are not good and true, then nothing is good and true—that in some ways they’re more real than reality. And, as I’ve found, when you embrace that realization, you’ve had your first encounter with God.

By: Jennifer Fulwiler



  1. thomraff Reply

    Morality is subjective, even if one accepts the unsupported claim that it comes from a god (Hello, God is a person, right? A person is subjective). Most humans have an embedded sense of right and wrong, good and bad. I think most sane humans can agree that morality is the highest level of well-being for the most numbers of feeling beings. From there, humans acting in organizations can use the tools of science to determine what objective actions maximize well-being.

    Statements from any authority, whether written or spoken, have no evidence for being more correct or more moral than our innate empathy and cooperation from evolution. Also, Ironically, societies that are free and are predominately secular have a higher level of well-being and happiness than free societies that are more religious.

  2. Patrick Gannon Reply

    Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in the existence personal deities. How can this be called a “belief system”? The one making the claim (of personal deities) is the one who must defend it, and trying to accuse the atheist of being a believer is intended to avoid that responsibility.
    Every devout Catholic must also be an atheist. Do you believe that Allah sent Mohammed to be his prophet? Do you believe Gabriel dictated the Qur’an in a cave? Do you believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? Do you believe there will be 72 virgins waiting for you in Paradise? No? You don’t believe these things? Why not? Why do you lack belief in this particular personal god? Lack of evidence, perhaps? If you lack belief in Islam, then you are, according to the definition, an atheist. Aren’t we all atheists to some extent? Most atheists, by the way, are really agnostics on a floating scale, and assert that there is no evidence for gods or afterlives, but they are certainly open to examining any objective evidence that is put forth.
    The example of the moral dilemma – is it more ethical to kill an undeveloped human fetus than a fully grown pig, when the former has no nervous system to speak of, thus little or no sensation of pain, and the other is going to die with a hideous scream of agony? Yes – this is a moral dilemma, but rather than deal with it, the author decides to give up thinking for herself and hand this off to someone else, given the difficulty involved. That is the easy way. Ignorance is blessed. It is certainly more immoral to kill pigs the way we do, than it is to abort undeveloped fetuses, if we insist that morality is in any way based on suffering and pain. So on what basis is it immoral to remove a handful of cells, while being perfectly moral to hang a screaming pig by a hook and slit its throat? Tough question, but instead of growing up, our author runs away shuddering in search of someone to think for her.
    Then the next moral dilemma – whether we should continue to support people in third world countries, versus letting evolution thin the herd, so to speak. Because her counterargument was weak (she doesn’t tell us what it is), she decides to turn over responsibility for that dilemma to the Church who, once again, is all too happy to do her thinking for her. Just because she didn’t have a ready response, doesn’t mean there isn’t one, or that she should stop looking for it. Perhaps the damage that is done to our societal altruism is greater than the potential good from allowing nature to thin the herd… I don’t know. The process of thinning the herd is not likely to be altruistic, so perhaps it is in humanity’s joint benefit to help the unfortunate in order to foster the evolution of more altruism, rather than less. There is an answer – we’ve left it to religion and philosophy to tell us what to do, but there are better and worse ways to do things, and I think it’s time for science to get involved in helping us determine what is best for the combined personal and general well-being that constitutes a moral society.
    Then she illustrates some ignorance of evolution. “Species” do not have “goals.” When do Zebras get together to discuss their joint goals? One might suggest that genes have goals, but this would be metaphorical, of course. Genes are part of a process, and that process is defined as evolution, but there is no goal or purpose per se. Because her classmate made a comment she found disturbing and couldn’t bother to spend any additional time seeking better explanations for, she decided to assign these difficult issues to the Church – which is directly responsible for creating some of the very problems that are being discussed, through its Iron Age policy of telling the people least capable of having large families that they must do so or burn in hell. If suffering does not make life worth living, why is the Church so attracted to it, and contribute so much to that suffering through its primitive policies? Mother Teresa loved suffering – the more we suffer here, the greater the reward somewhere else. It’s easy to sell that message when everyone is suffering – but not so easy when you remove suffering by dealing with the problems of overpopulation and sexism by improving the lives of people instead of sentencing them to more of the same.
    Basically the rest of the article is about how she gave up her personal responsibility to think for herself and how she assigned that to an Iron Age organization that sees her as something less than a man, and who sees her baby as having been born broken and sinful. I would agree that most Catholics are good, decent people, and most of them in western nations don’t believe half the Iron Age doctrine the Church spouts – but the Church is still doing damage to the less fortunate on this planet, not to mention children it psychologically abuses with threats of eternal torment, and our former atheist is happy to allow them to do so because she’s handed her brain to them. So sad.

  3. George M. Reply

    I don’t understand why till now we all are so blinded with answers let’s just look at history look at everything in life starts with a seed from a plum to a child to planets we have to put the seed down first and yes science is correct and religion is also what we are missing is that we all should follow and not lead we all look for excuses or explanations because of pain or suffering oufserves evolution Big Bang pushed the universe into being

    what was before that and the plum of seed that was planted we all need an energy a hand a action so in summary we have to get out of our mind and thoughts and look at reality what do they say now there is no space that space is all interconnected quantum physics put something on different sides of the universe and the same action is applied to both hello were all brothers and sisters connected in the center we all have to come back home to the center of understanding what is that it’s the understanding of love

    Love transcends all time and space

    Love transforms
    You won’t be the same after

    Light brings darkness to reality and shows the space

    What matters is that we all are on the same way thruth and life

    Let’s drop our ego and truly look at what’s in front of us

    Religion has caused pain but also our moral science has also caused pain due to self will

    I will let you draw your own summary and closing

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories