5 Arguments That Will Shake Your Faith in Christianity


As young Catholics living in today’s world, if we don’t know our faith, we are in serious trouble.  Many people who enter college as Catholics do not leave as such.  And, to put it bluntly, we as a generation are leaving the Church for some rather dumb reasons.  As sort of a rebuttal, here are 5 of the most common arguments I have witnessed that often result in a young person’s faith being shaken:

1.) “The Bible Says A Lot of Things…”

What happens when the young Catholic discovers that the same Bible containing Romans 1:27 (a classic go-to verse for defending the scriptural basis for the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts) also contains such passages as 1 Corinthians 11:14 (which apparently condemns men having long hair), or Leviticus 11:12 (which prohibits man from eating things like shellfish)?

It would seem that a phone call to the Pope is in order, because clearly the Church has missed some serious issues in Her teaching and needs to be corrected immediately.

Often overlooked by those who make this argument is the fact that the Catholic Church Herself put the books of the Bible together.  Why put together a book that contradicts our own teachings?

By this logic, are we to just completely ignore when the Bible condemns anything on the grounds that it is morally objectionable?  (Sure, the Bible says we shouldn’t steal from other people, but it also says we shouldn’t eat shellfish, so you know…)

Are we really so arrogant to think that our generation is the first to notice these apparent contradictions in Scripture? Any person who spends just 20 minutes reading the Bible can tell you that apparent contradictions abound in both the Old and New Testaments of Scripture, and this issue is as old as Scripture itself.   In Her wisdom, the Catholic Church has provided guidelines for reading and interpreting the Scriptures, and I for one trust the 2,000 year old wisdom of the Church over my 21 years of something hardly resembling wisdom.

  • **For the record, it is often put forward by scholars that Leviticus 11 prohibits the Israelites from eating certain animals because these were associated with pagan worship.  To protect His people from falling into idolatry, God makes this law.
  • And I think that 1 Corinthians 11:14 actually is speaking more to the fact that men are to dress like men and women are to dress like women.  Given the fashion of the times, men having hair the length of a woman’s was a disgrace, but this is clearly not meant to be interpreted in a strictly literal sense for all of the following ages.

Lesson Learned: Given the fact that the Church put the Bible together, I think they have a pretty good handle on things.  Never be afraid to question, but always let the Church be your guide.

2.) Saint Augustine Was Pro-Choice

Know-it-alls of our day will use the fact that Augustine said that life does not begin until the child in the womb is three months to try and prove that the Church’s understanding of and teaching on abortion has changed over the centuries.  Two things to take note of here:

  1. Augustine was not a pope making an ex cathedra statement.  Translation: just because Augustine is a canonized saint does not mean that everything he said is 100% true.
  2. To say that this implies that Augustine, or the Catholic Church was ever okay with abortion is just flat-out dishonest.

Lesson Learned: Saints are people we know are in Heaven.  Though the benefit their lives and writings have provided the Church and the world cannot be overstated, canonization does not mean every word they spoke is law.

3.) Science Can Explain Anything Religion Tries To

This is an easy one that any self-respecting scientist or theologian will tell you point-blank.  Science is concerned with the natural realm.  Faith deals with the supernatural realm and therefore science cannot answer for it, and can certainly never prove nor disprove the existence of any god.

Lesson Learned: Science and Religion are not enemies; they ought to work together.  As Blessed JPII said, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition.  Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes”

4.) But Galileo!

I will refer you all to chapter 10 of Dinesh D’Souza’s book, What’s So Great About Christianity, entitled, “An Atheist Fable: Reopening the Galileo Case” (which can be read in part on Google Books, here).

Aside from the fact that he insulted the pope by referring to him as a “simpleton” throughout his Dialogue which publicly proclaimed his view that the sun was the center of the universe, there were 3 other greater issues with this action:

  1. Galileo, as a practicing Catholic who respected the Church, had previously promised the Church he would not publicly teach his views on the sun being the center of the universe until the evidence was clearer.  Back then, science and religion had a lot more overlap, and this was not such an extreme request for the Church to ask of Galileo.  He went ahead and did it anyway.
  2. His proof was faulty.  We all know now that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, but Galileo’s Dialogue did not prove this definitively, and even made some false statements about the natural order of things.
  3. Most importantly, rather than sticking to science, Galileo took the opportunity to challenge Church teaching on Scripture, asserting that the Bible was “largely allegorical and required constant interpretation to excavate its true meaning” (p. 108).

While Galileo was found guilty for promoting his heliocentric views, he was never accused of heresy and never tortured or held in a dungeon as is often asserted.  He was forced to recant and was placed on house arrest, which he served for five months in the palace of the archbishop of Siena, and allowed to visit his daughters at the convent of San Matteo.  He died of natural causes in 1642.

Lesson Learned: The Church is not anti-science nor anti-progress.  She is cautious of hastily leading people to following things that lack adequate proof.

5.) There Are Bad People In the Church

Yes, yes there are.  Throughout history, we have even had some pretty horrific popes.  I mean seriously—bad, bad people.

Fortunately for us, The Holy Spirit is not to be vanquished by even the most terrible of evils that mankind can perpetrate.  This is a story to which we already know the ending.  Good wins out in the end.  Though the men and women of the Church will never be perfect, and history will be a story of ups and downs until the end of time, the Teaching of the Church is guaranteed perfect.  How?  Jesus said so, in Matthew 16:18 when He established His Church.  “The powers of death shall not prevail against it”.

Lesson Learned: Don’t let it shake your faith when people point out the corruption in the Church.  Be horrified at it, of course.  Work to prevent it, of course.  But do not place your faith in men, place your faith in Jesus, and remember His words in Matthew 16:18.

  • Shelly R

    Great Job!

  • Jodie

    Mary, you are an amazing young woman.  Your blogs are always refreshing, enlightening, and relevant. 

  • http://exlaodicea.wordpress.com berenike

    He may have thought there wasn’t a human until three months after conception, but he doesn’t say abortion before then is a-okay. You’ve answered a false objection, if you see what I mean.

    • http://youngandcatholic.net Mary Lane

      Agreed.  Actually all of these are kind of false objections, and that’s really the point of this post.  There’s can be no “true” objection to Truth…right?

  • Qphoenix 7

    also, galileo according to Br. Guy from the Vatican’s Observatory was a hero AFTER his trial. If the Church was indeed against science why did she continue instructing and researching science for all her priest?

  • Heiko Herzog

    “She is cautious of hastily leading people to following things that lack adequate proof.”
    Seriously? I almost fell of my chair laughing.
    I don’t know if you have dealt with the Church lately, but I was asked to believe a lot of things for which there was not even a shred of proof.

    I think this is the main problem I as a scientist have with religion. In order for anything that I discover to be accepted I need to:
    1) do experiments
    2) they need to be properly controlled for (+ and -)
    3) they have to be replicated
    4) usually several different experiments need to lead to the same conclusion to present a whole picture
    5) submit my experiments to a peer review journal
    6) after about half a year to a year in the review process, my results will be publishes
    7) encourage other scientists to verify them
    And even if all this happened, as a scientist we are often encourgaed to regard everything we come up with as a “theory”, “model” or “hypothesis”, because we are aware that in the light of new facts we need to alter, modify or reject our previous results.
    And that is a great process.

    What I find deeply disturbing is that: “Faith deals with the supernatural realm and therefore science cannot
    answer for it, and can certainly never prove nor disprove the existence
    of any god.”
    That may be true. But why then do I have to believe any of it for good reason except that some people choose to think it is true? I believed in Santa for a long time, too.
    I don’t mind people believing in God, Thor, Fairies or Goblins. Do as you please. But why does that deserve more respect than science, than reason? It doesn’t.
    Any issue that the Catholic Church takes a stand on from abortion to same-sex marriage is amenable to discussion and the argument: “Our religion believes it is wrong” is just plain weak. There are religions that advocate mutilation – should we really allow that, too?

    • http://youngandcatholic.net Mary Lane

      I don’t really understand your issue.  I’m not forcing you to believe my religion is true; I’m saying that you can’t treat religion as science, because it’s not.  I’m saying that this imagined war between faith and reason is just that–imaginary.  

    • KT

      I think Mary is arguing that many times people use science as a way to disprove religion. They think that because they have the ability to explain how something occurs, then there couldn’t have been a god behind it. She’s just trying to assert that science doesn’t have the ability to prove or disprove the existence of god, so it shouldn’t be used that way. Personally I love science because it shows what a genius God must be to be able to design things so beautifully and intricately.

    • Kyle Klipfel

      The Church is not against nor in contradiction of reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made many fantastic arguments for the existence of God, and the necessity of His Church, granted they all operate under Aristotelian Metaphysics, it still has weight on pretty much every modern/enlightened philosopher. 

      You also have to understand that Science asks the question “how?”. How do cells multiply? How are mountains formed? etc. Religion answers “why”. Science will never give life meaning, nor will it be able to explain where the ball of gas that started the big bang came from (fun fact, the Church is not against evolution or the big bang, they just realize that that is not the source).
      As for the issues of Abortion and SSM, you fail to prove that science has any answers for that at all, and the Church does a pretty good job of defending her position, check out the Catechism’s teaching on SSM, and read the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae, they will provide firm, and valid argumentation. It may not use the scientific method, but rather, the appropriate academic discipline when dealing morality, which is philosophy.

  • http://everythingtosomeone.blogspot.com/ Christie

    Well said!

  • Jbro88

    I personally struggle to understand your point if I am honest. Faith is not a competition with regards to who is right or wrong. Our place is not to question why young people leave the church but to be ready to welcome them back if they should return (a point made by Jesus himself in his teachings) it is not our place to call people “stupid”.

    There is a danger with this that you in fact alienate those you perhaps wish to evangelise. Jesus did not pick 12 disciples because understood all his teachings, the contridictions in the new testament highlight this.

    • Sharon

      I think the point was just to show that there are answers to objections that people often cite as “unanswerable”.  

  • Kim

    Not many people know that info about Galileo -excellent point!

  • Kdklipfel

    With the Galileo issue, this was taking place during the 30 years war, where battling Protestants and Catholics in the German speaking ares of Europe (A war between the Nobles of the area, and not the Church itself). There was a lot of religious tension and the Church wasn’t trying to ‘quiet’ anything, but trying to maintain the peace.

    A lot of Galileo’s colleagues were afraid that if he was right, then they would loose their credibility. They used the Scriptural language of “The sun rose and fell”, which implied that the sun was the body moving, to imply that Galileo was in contradiction of the Bible. These other scientists tried to shut Galileo up for their own gain. The Church, in her wisdom, realized that this discovery really wasn’t worth another war that left 30% of the German speaking population dead… So they chose to ask Galileo to stop his teachings. As the legend goes, as Galileo walked out of the Papal office, he said “It still moves”, accepting that this teaching wasn’t worth the bloodshed it might cause.

  • Jimmy

    The problem with all your arguments is that they dance around the real objections.  For instance, you can use sophistry too try to justify locking Galileo up for the ideas he expressed but you will need more sophistry still to justify burning Giordano Bruno at the stake.  The imprisonment and burning of critics, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum banning critical books, were all of one piece.  They were all attempts to spread the Churches conception of the truth through brutality; you can see what has happened to the influence of the Catholic Church in Europe now that they can’t burn their critics alive.If your first point was a convincing argument there never would have been a protestant reformation or an enlightenment.  I think until Catholicism can find adequate intellectual responses to these question (and resolve other issues) its influence will continue to fade, its priests will continue to grow more grey haired, and people will continue to lose respect of its teachings.