What is the point of a message board that won't allow one to engage in posting messages? When I try to enter the General Discussion, I get this message.

Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum.[/quote]

This message board is not a debate forum. Judging from your username, that's what you came here for. I'm afraid you'll have to go somewhere else if you want that sort of thing.

The "point" of this message board is to facilitate private discussions of members of the Collegium Scriptorum Catholicae. You can read more about this group in the "About Us" forum.

NWansbutter wrote:

This message board is not a debate forum. Judging from your username, that's what you came here for. I'm afraid you'll have to go somewhere else if you want that sort of thing. The "point" of this message board is to facilitate private discussions of members of the Collegium Scriptorum Catholicae. You can read more about this group in the "About Us" forum.

The top of the board says, "This group is an attempt to respond to the lack of good Catholic fiction available in the marketplace. To that end, we are a group of Traditionalist Catholics who assist each other with critiquing manuscripts and discussing literary issues."
Perhaps a non-Catholic view could be an honest critique as well. Although not Catholic, I am pretty sure C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien read the non-religious critiques of their works. It probably helped them. There is no reason to be afraid of me.

I do not doubt that your criticisms would be honest, but I am afraid the only thing a non-Catholic view can contribute to the speaker's criticisms is error. If you don't mind, could you tell a little about your interest in this group? Your username notwithstanding, you seem to have some liking for Catholic literature.

Non Theist wrote:

Perhaps a non-Catholic view could be an honest critique as well. Although not Catholic, I am pretty sure C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien read the non-religious critiques of their works. It probably helped them. There is no reason to be afraid of me.

I don't doubt that a non-Catholic could provide an honest critique. I also think that non-Catholics could potentially offer some helpful comments in certain areas like the overall quality of the writing, pacing, or even whether an author is being too "preachy" or heavy-handed in his work. Nevertheless, that is not the sort of critiques we are looking for on this specific board. If any of our members felt the inclination to recieve feedback from non-Catholics on their work there are many places they could take their work.

If you are truly interested in Catholic fiction and of offering critiques on such works, perhaps you might see some of us on one of the aforementioned other boards like Zoetrope or Helium.com just to name a couple off the top of my head.

mdChambs wrote:

I do not doubt that your criticisms would be honest, but I am afraid the only thing a non-Catholic view can contribute to the speaker's criticisms is error. If you don't mind, could you tell a little about your interest in this group? Your username notwithstanding, you seem to have some liking for Catholic literature.

I find it interesting that you would classify my opinion as "in error", merely based upon my non-Catholic view. A difference of opinion is not always incorrect, sometimes it is just a difference.

My interest has various reasons behind it. First and foremost, it is written words that have formed this world more than anything else. Be they Catholic, Muslim, Buddhists or Non-secular, it is written words that have survived the test of time that shape what we have today. Great literature is a part of that legacy.

NWansbutter wrote:

Non Theist wrote: Perhaps a non-Catholic view could be an honest critique as well. Although not Catholic, I am pretty sure C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien read the non-religious critiques of their works. It probably helped them. There is no reason to be afraid of me. I don't doubt that a non-Catholic could provide an honest critique. I also think that non-Catholics could potentially offer some helpful comments in certain areas like the overall quality of the writing, pacing, or even whether an author is being too "preachy" or heavy-handed in his work. Nevertheless, that is not the sort of critiques we are looking for on this specific board. If any of our members felt the inclination to recieve feedback from non-Catholics on their work there are many places they could take their work. If you are truly interested in Catholic fiction and of offering critiques on such works, perhaps you might see some of us on one of the aforementioned other boards like Zoetrope or Helium.com just to name a couple off the top of my head.

I think a dissenting critique could offer things that others might not feel comfortable doing. You know the old saying, "preaching to the choir". Just for kicks and grins, I could be the resident naysayer.

By "find it interesting" I suppose you mean to say that you disagree. Or perhaps you are thinking on some hypothetical plane above such black and white concepts as 'correct' and 'incorrect' statement? Speaking with absolute rigor, anything that opposes Catholic doctrine is error. What is it that you think you might be more comfortable saying than a more orthodox writer? The only criticism a strict Catholic is forbidden from making is one that is based on incorrect theology, on what is not real, on a lie. I'm afraid there is no advantage to a vantage point that is merely different unless it is both different and still correct. And a non-theistic viewpoint is candidly incorrect. Maybe if you'd be willing to convert to Catholicism we could revisit your desire to join?

mdChambs wrote:

By "find it interesting" I suppose you mean to say that you disagree. Or perhaps you are thinking on some hypothetical plane above such black and white concepts as 'correct' and 'incorrect' statement? Speaking with absolute rigor, anything that opposes Catholic doctrine is error. What is it that you think you might be more comfortable saying than a more orthodox writer? The only criticism a strict Catholic is forbidden from making is one that is based on incorrect theology, on what is not real, on a lie. I'm afraid there is no advantage to a vantage point that is merely different unless it is both different and still correct. And a non-theistic viewpoint is candidly incorrect. Maybe if you'd be willing to convert to Catholicism we could revisit your desire to join?

When forming an opinion about artistic works (literature falls into that category), there is no black and white. A painting or poem may move me greatly, yet have no emotional impact on somebody else. That would not make one of us "correct" and the other "incorrect" in our feelings.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to share your literary works with me, the board does specifically mention Catholics, and I am not Catholic, no hard feelings.
As for this statement, "And a non-theistic viewpoint is candidly incorrect.", If I were to say that "The Chronicles of Narnia" were well written for the age of the intended audience, presented a positive Christian message and was an excellent use of fiction writing to accomplish that goal, is that a candidly incorrect viewpoint?

At this time, I will refrain from converting to Catholicism, but thanks for the offer.

Non Theist wrote:

As for this statement, "And a non-theistic viewpoint is candidly incorrect.", If I were to say that "The Chronicles of Narnia" were well written for the age of the intended audience, presented a positive Christian message and was an excellent use of fiction writing to accomplish that goal, is that a candidly incorrect viewpoint?

Mr. "Non Theist", I realise this was directed at my colleague, but I'd like to offer my thoughts as well. The above critique, if you indeed were prepared to limit yourself to that without critiqueing Christianity itself, would be a helpful one to any writer, I think (or conversely, if they had not accomplished the goal or done a poor job of it, that would be helpful as well). I think your comments could certainly be helpful to any of us with asperations of being published by a mainstream publisher and market our work to a larger audience.

That said, this board is specifically for members of the Collegium Scriptorum Catholicae -- and membership in the the Collegium requires that one be a Roman Catholic. I don't intend to change the purpose or scope of this board. Not wanting to ever turn away assistance that is honestly offered (and from your posts it would seem that you're legitimately interested in Tolkein or Lewis-style Christian-themed works for their literary merits), the best I could do is say you're welcome to post what you like in the visitors' forum and any members of our group interested in a "naysayer"'s opinion, could P.M. you about critiqueing a manuscript.

Non Theist wrote:

mdChambs wrote: I do not doubt that your criticisms would be honest, but I am afraid the only thing a non-Catholic view can contribute to the speaker's criticisms is error. If you don't mind, could you tell a little about your interest in this group? Your username notwithstanding, you seem to have some liking for Catholic literature. I find it interesting that you would classify my opinion as "in error", merely based upon my non-Catholic view. A difference of opinion is not always incorrect, sometimes it is just a difference.

A difference of OPINION is not always necessarily incorrect. A difference from Catholicism, however, is a difference from truth. And truth is not an opinion, but fact. A non-believer in the theory of the earth revolving around the sun may be all right in his opinions that grape jelly is superior to raspberry jelly. But if, in fact, the earth orbits the sun, than his opinion that it doesn't, and all of his ideas and theories and tastes coinciding with his error are not merely opinion, but in error because they run contrary to the truth, and so they cannot be correct, or useful in the study of truth.

If you deny Catholicism, than you deny the laws of God as such, which we, as Catholics, must avoid breaking if we prefer heaven to hell. If you do not believe in them, or are ignorant of any one of them, then your 'opinions' will rather lead the Catholic soul closer to perdition than salvation. Not because your opinions are unacceptable, but because when you speak of opinions on matters of the truth, suddenly what one thinks becomes entirely irrelevant. Where truth (such as God's law existing or us needing to follow it) comes into question, all that matters is whether or not one holds the truth, and has based their opinions upon it.

What flavor of jelly you prefer is pure opinion. Whether, for instance, the inquisition was what historians make of it, is a matter of fact, and requires truth rather than opinion as a measure of it's propriety. That is the key problem we have here.

NWansbutter wrote:

Non Theist wrote: As for this statement, "And a non-theistic viewpoint is candidly incorrect.", If I were to say that "The Chronicles of Narnia" were well written for the age of the intended audience, presented a positive Christian message and was an excellent use of fiction writing to accomplish that goal, is that a candidly incorrect viewpoint? Mr. "Non Theist", I realise this was directed at my colleague, but I'd like to offer my thoughts as well. The above critique, if you indeed were prepared to limit yourself to that without critiqueing Christianity itself, would be a helpful one to any writer, I think (or conversely, if they had not accomplished the goal or done a poor job of it, that would be helpful as well). I think your comments could certainly be helpful to any of us with asperations of being published by a mainstream publisher and market our work to a larger audience. That said, this board is specifically for members of the Collegium Scriptorum Catholicae -- and membership in the the Collegium requires that one be a Roman Catholic. I don't intend to change the purpose or scope of this board. Not wanting to ever turn away assistance that is honestly offered (and from your posts it would seem that you're legitimately interested in Tolkein or Lewis-style Christian-themed works for their literary merits), the best I could do is say you're welcome to post what you like in the visitors' forum and any members of our group interested in a "naysayer"'s opinion, could P.M. you about critiqueing a manuscript.

Mr. Wansbutter,
I fully accept and understand the decision made by the administration of this board to restrict the critique and comments by non-catholics. As I stated in an earlier post, "I can understand why you wouldn't want to share your literary works with me, the board does specifically mention Catholics, and I am not Catholic, no hard feelings."
I appreciate that you would recommend to others to PM me their works if they are interested in a naysayers point of view. My non-theist point of view would certainly be unique, as approximately 96% of people have some sort of faith. I do suspect that most writers here are probably not interested in reaching that small segment of the population though.
Thank you, and good day.

TachikoAiba wrote:

Non Theist wrote: mdChambs wrote: I do not doubt that your criticisms would be honest, but I am afraid the only thing a non-Catholic view can contribute to the speaker's criticisms is error. If you don't mind, could you tell a little about your interest in this group? Your username notwithstanding, you seem to have some liking for Catholic literature. I find it interesting that you would classify my opinion as "in error", merely based upon my non-Catholic view. A difference of opinion is not always incorrect, sometimes it is just a difference. A difference of OPINION is not always necessarily incorrect. A difference from Catholicism, however, is a difference from truth. And truth is not an opinion, but fact. A non-believer in the theory of the earth revolving around the sun may be all right in his opinions that grape jelly is superior to raspberry jelly. But if, in fact, the earth orbits the sun, than his opinion that it doesn't, and all of his ideas and theories and tastes coinciding with his error are not merely opinion, but in error because they run contrary to the truth, and so they cannot be correct, or useful in the study of truth. If you deny Catholicism, than you deny the laws of God as such, which we, as Catholics, must avoid breaking if we prefer heaven to hell. If you do not believe in them, or are ignorant of any one of them, then your 'opinions' will rather lead the Catholic soul closer to perdition than salvation. Not because your opinions are unacceptable, but because when you speak of opinions on matters of the truth, suddenly what one thinks becomes entirely irrelevant. Where truth (such as God's law existing or us needing to follow it) comes into question, all that matters is whether or not one holds the truth, and has based their opinions upon it. What flavor of jelly you prefer is pure opinion. Whether, for instance, the inquisition was what historians make of it, is a matter of fact, and requires truth rather than opinion as a measure of it's propriety. That is the key problem we have here.

Dear TachikoAiba,
you are both eloquent and passionate. Admirable traits in a person. I do beg to differ with you, however. You speak of truth as it pertains to your religion. In this world I see the same passion for truth from not only catholics but from islamics, judaism, buddhists, scientology and most every other religion. To dismiss ones opinion based solely upon religious beliefs is only doing yourself a mis service.
Choosing catholicism as opposed to judaism is not akin to choosing raspberry jam over strawberry jam. Religious choices run much deeper.
Best regards.

Non Theist wrote:

Dear TachikoAiba, you are both eloquent and passionate. Admirable traits in a person. I do beg to differ with you, however. You speak of truth as it pertains to your religion. In this world I see the same passion for truth from not only catholics but from islamics, judaism, buddhists, scientology and most every other religion. To dismiss ones opinion based solely upon religious beliefs is only doing yourself a mis service.

I don't speak of truth as it pertains to my religion. I speak of truth period. If everybody earnestly seeks the truth in a matter, and they find it, it will be the same thing, not different things. Gravity is the same for Catholics and atheists alike. A Catholic who builds a skyscraper must adhere to the same rules and laws of building and of nature as a buddhist. Why? Because those laws and rules are simply truth. They are the same for everyone.

"Beliefs" cease to be simply such, when they coincide with what actually is the case. (This is why the idea of many religions being correct cannot possibly be the case, for instance... all of them conflicting, and it being impossible for two conflicting things to be true at once.)

I'm not trying to pick a quarrel, but I think you miss the point of what I was trying to say entirely. Let me try to put it differently then... There is only one truth about every singular point. Several things may be true about a single object, but of those truths, none can be conflicting. A ball, for example, may be red AND white, but it cannot both be white, and not be white at the same time. No matter if someone sees the ball in question or not, or whether or not the whole world believes it, if it's white, it is white. Those who "believe" it is white are not wrong simply because others think it isn't.

Now apply this to religion. On the point of God, either there is or there isn't one. If there is, then He simply is what He is, not many conflicting things. If He exists, He is then as real as the ground under our feet, or the air we are breathing. He will then have a nature, and a mind of His own, and there will be a truth about every point of Him, which will not be conflicting to itself. For instance, He cannot both exist and not exist at once. That would be absurd. Or there cannot both be a Hell, and not be one. Again, to think so would be just illogical. So logically if God is a reality, there can indeed be only one truth about Him, not one for each religion. There is only one truth, and that truth is the same universally, regardless of who knows it or believes it. Outside of that truth, anything else that is believed by people and isn't a reality, is simply wrong.

Like the universe, if everyone really wanted to know the truth, there is plenty of evidence to point us in the right direction. What is there that exists... air included, which does not give some sign of it's existence? Based on observations of the world or universe around us, we can draw certain logical conclusions based upon what we know to be the case without a doubt, and based upon what we then observe. After one finds the answer, of course, one has only to agree that it is correct. Though whether or not they do will not change the fact of the truth.

If everybody did this, there would only be one universal belief upon every point of truth in existence. Religion, like say physics, would be unified by men simply accepting what is obviously the case, and acting accordingly. So when we talk of "everybody's truth being equal" or "everybody being passionate for the truth" ... well, firstly, there is only one truth, and that truth excludes everything else, and secondly, if people were really passionate for truth, we should all certainly share it after these thousands of years of human history, observing the world around us and knowing what we know by common sense. But since obviously that is not the case, it becomes clear that some people... or in fact MANY people, are far more interested in believing what they like (passionate for beliefs) rather than what simply is true.

Now how does this have anything to do with writing? Well, we being rational human beings, have observed the world around us, and found it to support the beliefs of the Catholic religion which we have come to know through various circumstances. Therefore we have submitted to it. I'm sure that most of us could say that if we'd come across anything obviously absurd, we probably would realize it cannot be true, and would have stopped following it long ago. (Don't bother bringing up miracles... obviously this is answered in the very concept of a deity as such. Anyone who could create a universe, should have no trouble bringing about a virgin birth, or causing the dead to live again.) Well, we have come to accept this creed as being perfectly in line with (or if you will, as being) truth.

Well, now we come to the problem at hand. If we are correct in our religion, then it simply IS true, not opinion. Likewise, if it IS true, then automatically anything contrary to it would be false, or error.

Now if I possess the truth and build a bridge based on truth, that bridge will stand. But if I don't possess the truth, and try to build the same bridge based upon error, the bridge will collapse, regardless of my personal beliefs in my error, or what I thought of the truth.

If for example, God would punish with hellfire the writing and publishing of a pornographic novel, it won't matter whether or not a person believed this to be the case. In the end (assuming they were responsible for their actions), they would be just as much in hell as the man who was raised believing this fact and who did so anyhow. The truth remains the same, belief or not. But now if you, not believing in it, try to convince me that I may write and publish a pornographic novel (for example's sake), I would still go to hell for it, regardless of whether or not you believed I would. You yourself may be actually and sincerely ignorant of that truth and so escape complete blame for that effect, but I, nevertheless, would still be in hell all the same.

The issue isn't that I don't think atheists are entitled to an opinion. The issue is, is what I hold to be the truth actually is, then an atheist is going to be a very bad guide, since they hold no such things, and will encourage me to think about things as they do. In eternity, however, I would still be responsible for my own actions.

Every opinion we hold which is influenced by what we believe, stands to be correct the more we accept of what actually is true, and in error the more of truth we have come to deny. Therefore, if the Catholic Church has it right, and you don't think so, your beliefs will bring me to a bad end if they are based in any way upon the errors which you hold, and will undermine my belief and the belief in others of the truths which these opinions deny, for which I, being the writer of the work, become responsible for having accepted.

If Catholicism were wrong, then this whole forum would be pretty silly. But if it is right, than we would be pretty silly to trust an atheist to discuss something, even the finest and most minute nuances of which have moral implications and responsibility attached to them. Just picture getting into a taxi cab with a guy who doesn't believe construction signs or streetlights. And is such a one who you would ask for opinions on your own driving?

If we believe Catholicism to be true, this is the logical choice. Even matters seemingly unrelated to religion in our work, often come down to subtle recognition of truth, or matters of ethical propriety based upon Divine law and order.

I will give you one example. It's a well debated point even among Christians who haven't thought about it enough. The use of violence. The proposition being, that "violence is an evil in art, unless it both evoke and encourage the proper human response to it, and serve some purpose, and only then if it is done in such a way that it does not evoke any unnatural response in us."

Anything which is against nature causes the disorder thereof... that's a proposition you might agree to. It is not a topic you will find in the ten commandments, nor in the papal encyclicals, nor in the Bible which itself contains much violence. But the implications become more explicit with a little thought...

Violence as Hollywood uses it, is wholly for the purpose of thrill, which in itself is an unnatural response to human pain and suffering. Naturally, we should not like, or enjoy, or think funny the pain or death of another human being, or indeed even the idea of it. Hollywood's violence may not make many people go out and copy it (though this can be debated, I'm sure), but it does have an unnatural effect... that is human beings ENJOYING pain and death of other human beings... or at least the idea of it. And it translates into the group of school kids who enjoy torturing a schoolmate "for fun"... or at the very least, it encourages and agrees with it. Whereas the account of what roman soldiers did to Christ naturally evokes compassion for the victim of that brutality, because of the way in which it is presented. The same subject matter in the hands of an unscrupulous artist, could evoke completely opposite reactions in people. The former is natural, the latter unnatural.

I could go on. What we see, is that objectively speaking, the use of violence as Hollywood uses it, is not evoking a natural response, and moreover, elicits and encourages unnatural responses and attitudes. An account of a historical nature, furthermore, has a purpose... to communicate some truth or fact of history. A fictional story which shows a young man loosing his best friend to gang violence, can communicate a truth about the nature of gangs, and need not necessarily be sadistic in portrayal, even if the murder itself was such. (Care in how one puts things, rather than "toning down" ... or if you will, not emphasizing the gruesome even if it is mentioned or implied, merely for the sake of thrills.)

Now YOU might say... well, there are no explicit commandments in your religion against it... so why not write whatever violence you want? OR... "I don't see what the big deal is. It's only a book." I would say it matters a lot. Why? Because were it not for God being the Author of nature, and our faith in His knowing what was best for every creature and every part of nature, then it wouldn't matter at all if we tried to violate it in every conceivable way. If nature is an accident, there can be no violation of it. However if nature is the proper order of things as they are, set down by a thinking and all-knowing God, according to what is best for those things... then we would be foolish to do anything to go against nature.

The nature of a man naturally abhors violence. We may think immediately of any number of reasons why a thinking God should have this be the case, beginning with ourselves avoiding danger, and perhaps ending with a safeguard protecting us from simply destroying ourselves. If it were without reason, it wouldn't be an issue. But now if we violate that nature by writing things which elicit unnatural responses in the readers, we are warping human nature, and helping human beings to become, in short, less human. Finally, if God be the Author of that nature as it is, then we add to our offense of doing evil to another human being, the offense of defying God. Suddenly, God and our "belief" in Him has everything to do with the issue at hand, though at first it appears simply a matter of taste, with no right or wrong about it.

Our work is full of these issues, all pregnant with moral and ethical nuances which require that the artist know that moral reality and truth in great intimacy. If we don't consider the issue thoroughly enough, we may miss a dozen small dangers that are quite real, however subtle. It's not about "whitewashing" something. It's about adhering to the laws of nature and of God in putting down things as they are, or in fiction, as we present them in order to tell our tale and make our point. The atheist has no such qualms or restraints. If God does not exist, then all of this thinking is mere folly. However if He does exist, and I'm afraid He does, then the atheist misses 99.9% of everything about what we are doing that we need to consider, and consider PROPERLY, in line with truth and reason accordingly.

Whether sir Knight walks along one day into a dark forest or a sunny dale is of little importance. Whether sir Knight lives happily ever after, or wins a hundred wars, or dies in a dark dungeon is hardly an issue. Whether sir Knight promotes error or violates natural law, or whether he brings out the best or the worst in a reader, whether it pulls their nature toward it's right alignment or corrupts it further... these are the problems of the Catholic writer, and the truth in which they are interested. Take away belief in God, and all opinions on the matters are going to be automatically faulty if not altogether wrong.

As for quality, the paying public and professional complainers (critics) will certainly not hesitate to let us know if we haven't got an ounce of talent in us. But even a badly written bad story can do a lot of damage to the few human beings who read it. The Catholic writer need not be concerned overly much with success. In fact, we should be surprised if it comes at all in a world where profanity and filth and corruption are the norm. But we must concern ourselves with these issues, and for that we need guides who also have a copy of the map, as it were.

It's not personal, and it has nothing at all to do with opinion. It is to look for propriety and truth with a fine tooth comb and a magnifying glass, and to count lesser works as such, like a jeweler counts a flawed diamond less than a perfect one. A Catholic life is to live, striving to be as close to morally perfect as one can be (people's hypocrisy aside). To be a Catholic writer, is to concern one's self as an artist with the perfection of one's art, not to settle for art's equivalent of the immorality of the masses. It's not about being "better than thou". It's about realizing the human capacity for creation had a purpose and has an Eternal Model for a guideline, and adhering to that guideline to produce the best possible result. To disregard God here, is to throw one's map out the window and take up the blindfold.

God does exist. Even evolution could not be considered at all, unless one recognizes that the first atom in space could not have created itself, and allows a thinking Being to have created it and set it in motion. Whether or not we like this fact or whether it's convenient to ourselves, our lives or our work makes no difference to the truth of it. Nothing comes from nothing, and that which does not think, could not possibly create, even if once created matter can interact to certain results. If we deny this, we're going to be automatically wrong in an innumerable number of things which we think and believe. It's a recipe for disaster in many fields, because in many fields, the only thing that stands between man and disaster (metaphysical or physical) is morality, which is meaningless without God. Denying that God is impossible for us here, and listening to the advice or opinions of one who denies such an obvious reality is to 'build our foundation upon sand'. Personal feelings aside, it's quite irrational. I couldn't do it. I couldn't take my soul that lightly.

If you get to the bottom of this nine-mile post, please understand that what we seek to do here (at least some of us... I can't speak for everyone), is not merely hear whether others think we're any good, or our grammar is as it should be. If we want to have our work torn to pieces, or alternately, if we want an ego rub, or if it needs a grammar check, there are hundreds of other boards where we could go to hear those things said. If it's too "preachy" common sense and a good step back from our work should reveal it pretty plainly. Most of the time in asking for opinions, we're merely looking for people who will say outright what we ourselves have already seen, and wish wasn't the case about our work. But here we get to the very heart and bones of the work in a light scarcely found anywhere anymore, considering something more than only opinion... something which transcends taste and whim and fashion. Here we hold our work up to an eternal measure that won't bend for any of us. Here the man without faith could only find perpetual annoyances, since he is the only one who cannot see that measure.

The real disservice to myself would be to put my faith in one who denies the most fundamental point of all truth. I'm sorry if that offends you. Of course others here may disagree with this post, but for my part, that's how it is. (Please forgive my rambling, also... it's very late, and I'm hoping this makes any sense at all.)

You speak for me also, Tachiko. Bravo for a clear and well said answer! I have two cents only to add to that dollar, but may be worth offering to forestall some amount of further argument.

The multiplicity of religions, ideologies, and philosophies is no cause for dismay. Truth is almost never obvious, and there are many false hints and signs that one can follow into grave error. As a man of science, I can testify to the incredible difficulties faced by scientists, those who search for physical truth. Newcomers to the field have little hope of getting anything quite right on their first try, and I've seen men with fifty years of experience make gross mistakes in the very niche of their expertise. The media likes to portray science as trust-worthy and knowing. Except for the areas that have been tried and tests for years, it is often neither. Consider, for example, that mankind still does not know why the earth has as strong of a magnetic field as it does, nor why it switches. As one gets further away from hard physical science the number of errors explodes. Medicine is largely educated guess-work. The hair regrowing properties of minoxidil (Rogaine) were found as a side effect and no one knows why it works. Once you get to nutritional "science" you might as well throw your hands up and invent your own theory.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that once we get to moral truth there are errors and false doctrines aplenty. How one can be sure of the truth is another topic - long time-tested tradition, divine revelation and wondrous signs, and rigorous evaluation by concrete philosophical axioms are some of the ways - but the present disparity of opinions regarding God is by no means an indication of the absence of truth about whether God is.