(And considering the place that dogma has in the Catholic church, saying the Pope isn’t dogmatic takes a certain amount of chutzpa, no? :) )

On the contrary he is always willing to offer logical explanations for the content of his faith; to explain how he came to hold these beliefs. He welcomes challenges.

Of course this is in the hope that he will be able to offer something of value to his interlocutors, as he hopes, in turn, to receive something from them.

“Dogmatism” is defined as “positiveness in assertion of opinion esp. when unwarranted or arrogant” or “a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises”.

The point I hoped to make is that the faith and reason of Pope Benedict has nothing to do with “dogmatism” at least as defined. Perhaps you had another meaning in mind.

Your question about “the right argument” for some reason brings to my mind the quality of a real love that has become part of oneself. How could that love be destroyed? I suppose only if it could be shown to be based on a figment of one’s imagination, to have no reality other than in one’s own mind, that irrefutable evidence could be produced of its falsity.

Perhaps someone else can provide a better response to that question.

This is a fascinating question.

As I am sure you are aware, only two arguments against God are usually accorded real weight. These are, of course, the argument from evil and the argument from lack of obvious necessity. Arguments about cause and effect, though some think they are substantial, generally fail because they do not distinguish between essentially and accidentally ordered causation, or they deny essential causation altogether.

Now Benedict surely understands not only the arguments from evil and from lack of obvious necessity, but also the refutations of these arguments.

Why do some find these arguments persuausive, and others do not? Why are some people able to have faith or be faithful, that is, to assign rational trust to God?

There are people who understand rational arguments, professional academic philosophers, who have strong faith. Others do not. There are people like my grandmother, who lack even a grade school education, and are not read up on the scholastic philosophers, and yet have strong faith. Others, similar ignorant and uneducated, do not believe. Why is this? I do not think that belief in God is simply a matter of deploying the right arguments.

Just so I’m clear… are you contending that Pope Benedict would be willing to become an atheist “if only the right argument came along”?

Oh, well. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’…

“Arthur” traced the life of an ordinary Englishman who was born at the tail end of Queen Victoria’s reign (when England really did seem to rule the world), and found himself an old man in the Sixties (when England was a small and not terribly important country).

Arthur, like England, found himself wondering, “Didn’t I once have grand dreams? Didn’t I seem to have an unlimited future? Wasn’t I destined for greatness? How did I end up like this- old, tired, weak and worn out?”

Go over to Google News and do a search on “militant Islamist”, “militant Christian” and then “militant atheist” (include the quotes). For the first two, you’ll find people using rifles, grenades, bombs, knives, etc. To take some examples of “militant Christians”, we have the Army of God (bombing abortion clinics) and the Hutarees (currently facing terrorism charges).

Now look at the Google News results for “militant atheist”. As of this writing, it turns up people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Grayling – people who make make strongly-worded statements, but who actively, specifically decry violence.

Like I said, a double standard obtains. In practice, the secondary definition of ‘militant’ meaning ‘aggressive’ or ‘passionate’ is very nearly exclusively applied to atheists.

Either people use “militant atheist” as a lazy cliché – in which case they should be better writers (might I suggest a few alternatives like “aggressive”, “intransigent”, “close-minded”, “incorrigible”, “bloody-minded”, “vituperative”?) … or else the word’s used precisely in order to associate nonviolent people with violence, in which case it should be abandoned as a dishonest tactic.

Certainly there are and have been militant atheists – e.g. Stalin and Mao, who specifically targeted religious believers with violence precisely to promote atheism. Lumping Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest in with them is like lumping, say, Pope Benedict XVI in with Pope Benedict IX.

Say, consider Pope Benedict XVI – a dogmatic believer who constantly decries atheism, and the very concept of disbelief in God; and won’t be persuaded by any argument for the non-existence of God, and who indeed insists that no such argument could be right…

1. “Pony atheists,” those who are angry at God because they didn’t get a pony when they asked for one. Their arguments boil down to “there is no God, and I hate Him.”

2. People who are really just rebelling against their parents, but haven’t really thought too much about it.

3. People who want to do whatever their groins or bellies want to do, and don’t want some pesky “God” telling them what to do, or worse, what not to do.

4. The real, honest-to-goodness, cold-blooded, rational atheists. These are the folks who can really deploy rational arguments in support of their positions.

Category Four, in my experience, is vanishingly small.

“Militant” atheists may be found in each of these categories, but (again, in my experience) are fewer in Category Four.

A militant atheist, in my opinion, is a dogmatic unbeliever who constantly decries religion, and the very concept of God; and won’t be persuaded by any argument for the existence of God, even as he/she insists that they, of course, would be wiling to change their minds, and become believers, if only the right argument came along. From a human perspective, its impossible to convert them.

But with God, all things are possible. (Mathew 19: 26)