Anti-dhimmitude and clear-eyed realism at the Vatican. From Sandro Magister in Chiesa, with thanks to all who sent this in:
ROMA, April 10, 2006 – One of the four topics considered by Benedict XVI and the cardinals during their day “of reflection and prayer” at the last consistory, on March 23, was Islam.Or, more precisely: “the position of the Catholic Church, and of the Holy See, in the face of Islam today.”
The discussion was held in private, but some of the cardinals afterward remarked that much more concern was shown than in the past over the challenge that Islam presents to Christianity and the West, and that there was general agreement with Benedict XVI’s energetic opposition to terrorism and the violation of religious liberty.
One month earlier, on February 20, pope Joseph Ratzinger received Morocco’s new ambassador to the Holy See, Ali Achour, and made a vigorous appeal for the rejection of violence and for full respect for religious liberty, “in a reciprocal manner in all societies.”
And on March 22, on the eve of the consistory, the pope, acting through his secretary of state Angelo Sodano, had sent to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, an urgent request for the liberation of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan citizen condemned to death for converting to Christianity.
Rahman was in fact freed and transferred to Italy under protective custody. And he has Benedict XVI to thank for that.
But can this more energetic approach to the question of Islam also be found in the analysis the Church makes of the phenomenon?
The answer is yes. One outstanding proof of this is an essay that appeared in the most recent edition of “Studium,” an authoritative Italian bimonthly journal on Catholic culture founded in 1906, which is printed by the publishing house of the same name and directed by two scholars of great prestige: Vincenzo Cappelletti, a philosopher of science and director of the Institute of the Italian Encyclopedia, and Francesco Paolo Casavola, a jurist and former president of the constitutional court. The dedicated collaborators of “Studium” have included Giovanni Battista Montini, who became pope under the name of Paul VI.
The essay is entitled “The Islamic Question,” and occupies 30 pages of the journal. It is accompanied by extensive footnotes, and is featured prominently beginning with the cover, which depicts a minaret standing out among the skyscrapers of a Western city.
But the really interesting thing about the article is its authors, Roberto A.M. Bertacchini and Piersandro Vanzan, and in particular the latter of these. Vanzan is a Jesuit, a professor of pastoral theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and above all he is part of the college of writers for “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine of the Rome Jesuits that is printed with the inspection and authorization of the Vatican authorities.
Because of its explosive contents, it was unthinkable that the essay by Bertacchini and Vanzan would be published in a magazine strictly connected to the Holy See by statute, and representative of its official stance.
But the fact that the essay’s principal author is a Jesuit from “La Civiltà Cattolica,” and that it was published by an authoritative Catholic journal like “Studium,” are still important indications.
Those who have read “La rabbia e l’orgoglio [Rage and Pride]” and other writings on Islam by Oriana Fallaci – an author of worldwide fame who has lived in New York for many years – will find many points in common with hers in the essay by Bertacchini and Vanzan.
Oriana Fallaci is an extremely harsh critic of the religious and cultural factors that, in her view, feed into the Muslim world’s challenge against the West and Christianity, which she fiercely defends in spite of being a declared atheist.
She is a great admirer of Benedict XVI, who has read a number of her books and received her in a private audience last August 1 at Castel Gandolfo.
Read it all.
I'll risk the boredom of repeating myself on this thread as well.
There is a new publication from the Barnabas Fund. I have not read it yet but previous works have been very useful.
“Islam the Challenge to the Church” is the latest title from Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of Barnabas Fund.
http://www.barnabasfund.org/archivenews/article.php?ID_news_items=153
Granny Weatherwax
I'm conscious that the moral, intellectual and spiritual fibre that was first necessary before action by Christians to turn back the islamic invasion of Europe, was provided by Irish and English monks. Maybe that is what is happening now.
In England, Rev Patrick Sookhdeo, the Bishop of York and Rev Alan Clifford, are leading the moral and spiritual re-armament. Do look up Alan Clifford's site.
http://www.geocities.com/nrchurch/
Alan Clifford has a booklet out, "Christianity, Islam and British politics", which can be ordered from the site.
The previous Pope, like many Western governments, was preoccupied with Communism and the Cold War. He had never thought much, studied much, about Islam -- much as the current rulers in the Western world have failed to do so, though they should have promptly started in September 2001. His successor, as his many writings demonstrate, especially his conversations with Michele Pera (a member of the Italian Senate) in "Senza Radici," grasps the nature of Islam. There has been a reversal of policy.
Most telling, perhaps, has been the replacement of the deplorable Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, former president of the Pontifical Coucnil for Inter-Religious Dialogue, in which position he promoted policies of appeasement toward Islam. No doubt this was a result of his crude sentimentalism ("people are the same the whole world over and want exactly the same things"), ignorance (he never gave any sign of understanding Islam), uncertainty (why is the Western world superior in every way to the world of Islam?), and lack of both intelligence and imagination, which made him so harmful to European attempts to come to grips with the problem of Islam.
Here's a bit about this fellow:
"Rome, Mar. 30 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who was recently replaced as president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, has indirectly criticized Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) for underestimating the importance of interfaith discussions.
Inter-religious dialogue should not be considered merely as an aspect of cultural discussions, Archbishop Fitzgerald told a Rome seminar on March 29. Pope Benedict apparently thinks otherwise. On March 11, Pope Benedict announced that Cardinal Paul Poupard, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, would double as president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Although that appointment was described as temporary in an official Vatican announcement, many informed observers believe that the Pope intends to merge the two offices."
Only good can come from what is clearly an end to this kind of phony "dialogue."
The papcy of Pope Benedict XVI is a real breath of fresh air for the church and Christianity.
It is now time for the church leadership to no longer mislead Christians about the real nature of Islam.
No more apologies for the crusades or sugarcoating Islam to placate alarmists who believe that to criticize Islam amounts to "racism" and a sudden return to the holocaust.
Calling Muslims "brothers" in the world of faith believers gives the impression that Muslims can be trusted and even revered in the bonds of brotherhood.
The real truth tells us that our "Muslims brothers" are violently persecuting Christians and working to ERODE Christianity at an alarming rate around the world.
This link is informative:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/
This is also recommended:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49432
Perhaps it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its Catechism Number 841, which reads as follows:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
This statement flies in the face of many clear statements in the Bible.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the Life; no one goes to the Father except by me." (John 14:6)
When Peter preached in his first sermon after Christ ascended into heaven that Jesus who was crucified was indeed the Messiah, the people asked, "What shall we do?" Peter's response is found in Acts 2:38, "Each one of you must turn away from his sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit."
Later before the Council, Peter defended his faith by saying, "Salvation is to be found through [Jesus Christ] alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us." (Acts 4:12)
I don't know what prompted the Church to extend the "plan of salvation" to Muslims, but perhaps it is time for the Church to acknowledge that there is no scriptural basis for taking such a position.
I don't understand the headline. What is the "society of Jesus?" And where does it say that Ms. Fallaci has enrolled in such a society?
Seems to me the article is the other way around, that the Pope is taking Fallaci's analysis seriously.
help for the slow kid?
The Jesuits.
From the article:
I agree: Chiesa's heading was a strange choice.
Thanks Yojimbo. I'd never hear the Jesuits called that before and so obviously Fallaci did not become a Jesuit - bizarre headline.
"I don't know what prompted the Church to extend the "plan of salvation" to Muslims, but perhaps it is time for the Church to acknowledge that there is no scriptural basis for taking such a position."
Chris, in case you are unaware of it the muslims also acknowledge Jesus as being a prophet sent by God/Allah. So technically they should have no problem with getting past him.
Offcourse, rationally thinking people are atheists and we only care about the consequences that oppresive religions have in the real world and not in the hypothetical heaven. And practically speaking we must offcourse be happy about it when the catholic church helps oppose the primitive hordes of islam. But in my opinion the world would be a better place if both those religions went away and were replaced with common sense instead.
"Catechism Number 841, which reads as follows:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
-- from a posting above
Alert to Catechumens everywhere. What you read above was written, and adopted, at a time of misplaced hope and wilful ignorance. Muslims may "profess to hold the faith of Abraham" (sure, that's a staple of Muslim propaganda in the West -- the "three abrahamic faiths" etc.), but it is not true, it is false, to write that "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Flatly wrong. The adoration in Islam is not for a "merciful God" but for an aggressive, military-minded, never--to-be-crossed-or-mocked, Muhammad, uswa hasana al-insan al-kamil. He is the Perfect Man. And he is the star of the Muslim show. It is he who is one stage 83% of the time, Allah on stage only 17% of the time -- in Qur'an and Hadith. Whatever else he is, ie isn't "merciful." And come to think of it, the Muslim God is not "merciful" either. He's many things. He's all-powerful, and he's whimsical -- he can come in at any time to change things, and that is why the study of natural laws arose in the world of Western Christendom, which accommodated itself to the idea that God had set the whole thing a-whirring, and men could study the physical laws by which that universe was regulated, but in Islam, since at any point Allah can change things, it becomes much harder to assume that such physical laws could explain the way the universe works.
It is not true that the "three great monotheisms" are all naturally compatible. It is true that Christians and Jews have far less to fear from polytheistic Hindus, or from Buddhists, or from Zoroastrians, than they do from Muslims. The supposed identity of "faiths" that Muslims so slily imply or express at those entirely predictable "dialogues" with Christians and Jews that are always and everywhere mere exercises in taqiyya, and in fooling the Infidels (many of whom are dying to be fooled), is nonsense.
So, catechumens, what do you do when you come to 841? Accept it, or reject it? It is untrue, and the Church needs to correct that. A little red-pencilling, by a few red hats, is called for. Not a moment too soon.
ExpatriateDK proves once again that he has not the slightest drop of reason, dogmatically stating that "of course rationally thinking people are atheists." This is said without argument, without concern with any possible point - without reason. ExpatriateDK ought to learn from St.Thomas Aquinas, whose method was to state first the three most powerful objections to any point he wished to prove. EDK does not seem aware that there is anything to be proved at all; he lives in a world of irrational certainties.
Yojimbo and Rebecca, the whole "Oriana Fallaci joins the Jesuits" thing was an Italian joke that did not translate well. The JW equivalent, given that Fallaci is fiercely anti-Catholic, would be "ExpatriateDK becomes a thinking person."
ExpatriateDK is under the impression that common sense is common. I think he disproves this theory.
DP111 I do hope you are right.
My admiration for Rev Patrick Sookhdeo and the Archbishop of York are well known here; I have been directed to Dr Clifford's work in Norwich reform Church by several people. He does indeed write very impressively about Islam. I particularly liked the dedication of his last paper to the innocents of Beslan. We would have to agree to differ on certain other issues, but these are minor in the wider scheme of things.
I didn't take the heading to be a joke about Oriana Fallaci joining the Jesuits, I really thought that she had been accepted as a member of an group personal to the Pope (about which I naturally knew nothing not being a Catholic) bearing in mind how ill she is, and how well respected.
... the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
No Catholic (or Christian) in their right mind would worship Allah or accept 'it' as the 'one merciful God'...
Allah is NOT the God of anyone but muslims...Whatever Priest uttered those words was a dhimmi in a black suit and white collar.
When Alan Clifford was in the news first a while back, I put myself on his e-mail list. I started getting anti-Roman Catholic screeds from him. I told him I found them objectionable and had to ask him at least three times to remove me from his list.
When he finally replied and said he would, he included another anti-C diatribe. Obviously, realising that I was actually Catholic, he still couldn't resist. Very offensive. I'm afraid I wasn't big enough to overlook this! Very shortsighted of him imho.
Silvester, I am dismayed to hear that. My willingness to agree to differ with Dr Clifford would of course be dependent on his meeting me half way.
Well, the moment you acknowledge that there is a god controlling the universe and running things, you also have to acknowledge its possible that this god is the muslims Allah and that they really do have it right. After all, if its possible that what the bible says is true, then thats its the muslims who are right instead. Maybe god (allah) really is a petty vindictive bastard who enjoys having everyone grovel and beg for his favor.
Thats a pretty good reason to be an atheist in my opinion.
So, catechumens, what do you do when you come to 841? - Hugh
A heavy sigh, for starters.
I don't consider myself a "cafeteria Catholic." But I look at "841" and am reminded of:
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11).
I think Rome was as blind as so many of the rest of us were prior to 9/11 and the events that have followed in this decade. The post-colonial guilt complex probably played a part, as well as sincerely wanting to believe that that Islam was the religion of peace and tolerance that it advertised itself to be, and that, somehow, the fact that we were in different, "modern" times meant everyone was playing by different rules.
Nope. It's become clear that this is not the case.
The religion teachers back at my Catholic high school stressed the distinction between dogma and doctrine. Dogma doesn't change. That's the way it is. Doctrine can. So there's hope here.
ExpatriateDK: congratulations on your attempt to present something like an argument. Pity it's nonsense. On your reckoning, I ought to refuse to believe in Danes, because there is the possibility that they may all be morons. First, that is not a reason to believe or not to believe. The question is not what is the character of the Danes, but whether they exist. Second, assuming that there is something as bizarre as Danes in the universe, not all possible hypotheses about them are equally valuable. The idea that they may be green-skinned and have seven arms and trunk-like feet is somewhat less likely than that which makes them somewhat like other human beings - the existence of Trine Michelsen suggests, for instance, that they may have two arms and two legs. And the fact that the Muslim so-called revelation contains gross and checkable errors of fact (http://www.muhammadlied.com/index.php?id=1) does make their view of God somewhat less than certain.
If you want, we can continue this discussion in private. I think you can get my e-mail from Robert.
Everybody: actually, if you look back in this very site, you will find that the Vatican had begun to change course on Islam before JPII died - there was an issue of CIVILTA' CATTOLICA, the Jesuit magazine that comes closer than any other publication to being the voice of the Pope, which pretty much told the unvarnished truth about Muslim history and current behaviour. Conversely, the current Pope was as blind as the next man in past years: the Catechism which everyone quotes is pretty much his own work, as Prefect for the Congregation of Faith, and he must be held responsible for that silly passage about Abrahamic religions. It seems clear that he, like so many of us, was forced to change his mind at some point between 1997 (when the Revised Catechism was published) and the present.
Samir Khalil Samir is one of the best jesuits that I have read, he is the egyptian that say a lot of things about islam and he knows very well, he is arabic!!
I see this important, but it´s time to evangelize.
You analogy is wrong, Paolo. Because its pretty damn easy to find out whether we danes exist and how many arms and legs we have. It can be scientifically proven in case someone simply refuses to believe. And that is where it differs from religion. No one is asking you to believe that danes have green skin and seven arms. But christianity asks you to believe that some supernatural being created our world in 6 days and that a virgin gave birth to his son.
All religions requires belief in something that cannot be proven. Therefore they can all potentially be right and they can all potentially be wrong. Whether one of them seems more or less likely to be right is a matter of personal belief and that means that if there is a religion that truly got it right it could just as well be islam. Most followers of any given religion follow it because they were born into it and indoctrinated to believe in it throughout their childhood. If you had been born in a different part of the world, you would be taking part in a different mass-illusion than christianity.
But I still agree that islam is by far the most dangerous religion at this time. The catholic church has been tamed enough by reason and enlightenment to ensure that its no longer a threat. That doesnt change that its still an organisation that is causing massive grief and suffering throughout the world due to its medival views. For example anti-birth control policy is a big part of the reason why AIDS and overpopulation are the two biggest problems Africa is facing.
The earth will be a better place for humanity when we one day manage to shed the yoke that organised religion has put on our shoulders.
EDK: I could easily answer your arguments, but, as I already said, I refuse to do so on this thread and site. This is dedicated to fighting Islam. Your ignorance of history, philosophy and theology is staggering. Your arrogance is explained by the simple fact that you have no idea of what Christianity is, what philosophy is about, and you probably have never in your life met anyone who seriously disagreed with you about anything. Get in touch and I will point out all the flaws and gross mistakes in what you said. As Churchill said of someone else, you must have been very loosely educated. And this is the last answer I will give you here.
Paolo,
You've just replaced Hugh and Ronin as my hero... well, at least for this thread!
Paolo posted : Yojimbo and Rebecca, the whole "Oriana Fallaci joins the Jesuits" thing was an Italian joke that did not translate well. The JW equivalent, given that Fallaci is fiercely anti-Catholic, would be "ExpatriateDK becomes a thinking person."
Terrific.
Granny
There are some items that one does not see eye to with, but as you say, in the greater scheme of things, they are minor.
Silvester
You are right that Dr Clifford's thesis is anti-Catholic, and really he should desist from that. OTH, our greater issue is with islam at the moment.
EDK,
Would it suprise you that the Muslims do not get it right about God. In truth the ones who do get it right are the Christians. This year's Holy Week and Easter Sunday is proof of the great love and mercy offered by God through Jesus. As the very sucessful movie, " The Passion Of The Christ " has shown. Even when Christ suffered greatly. He is shown even when He looked weak as being what a true hero and victor is all about. Also this coming Easter millions of folks will be coming into my church via baptism and reception. That also proves the Christians got it right about God.
Those Cheese-wits should prove fitting opponents to the Muslims. Against the taqqiya of the latter would be pitted the willingness of the former to swear that the colour before them was black, when it was in fact white, if ordered by the chain of command to do so, in the interests of the Catholic church - or perhaps I'm getting protestant propaganda mixed up with what Loyaola actually said.
" Chris, in case you are unaware of it the muslims also acknowledge Jesus as being a prophet sent by God/Allah. So technically they should have no problem with getting past him."
EDK,
In truth; both Chris and Hugh do make very powerful points. The truth is that Muslims do not accept Jesus as Lord. Remember one of the shortest creeds there is, which it is Bible based is that " Jesus is Lord ". Also simply calling Jesus a prophet lowers Jesus in their eyes and Mohammed and Allah higher above them. The term " Jesus is Lord " comes from the apostle Paul's letter to the Phillipians, Chapter 2. The proof that the Muslims do not believe that Jesus suffered, died, and rose is enough to futher back both Chris and Hugh up as well as the Biblical passage.
Also on each Good Friday, during the special ten prayers of the faithful, Muslims and others who do not believe in Christ are offered with the hope that they too will come to faith in Him.
So technically both Chris and Hugh have it right.
RC Catechism number 841 is a bit of post-Vatican II ecumenical jibberish that will undoubtedly be corrected when this pope, or a future great pope rights the barque of St. Peter. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. It will go the way of all the Vatican II novelties in time -relegated to the trash heap of modernist experiments that have no scriptural nor traditonal basis.
In England, Rev Patrick Sookhdeo, the Bishop of York and Rev Alan Clifford, are leading the moral and spiritual re-armament. Do look up Alan Clifford's site. Posted by DP111
Dr. Clifford has experienced many legal problems for speaking out against Islam. He sends me clippings and other information about his campaign to educate the British people about Islam, and keeps me apprised of his legal quagmire. I've never met him, but he seems like a wonderful man.
I think it was through a link here about a year ago that I contacted him to offer moral support after the Thought Police threatened to arrest him for inciting "racial hatred" or some such BS. We have kept in touch ever since. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Clifford; he truly understands the threat we are facing.
Will you Christians and atheists in the back seat stop wrestling about the traits (or non-traits) of the Inscrutably Ineffable? The Muslims in the next car over are chuckling mono-maniacally.
Belief is non-transferable, being non-rational.
You cannot prove it or disprove it.
You cannot browbeat anyone into it.
Get back to fighting together against the murderously intolerant believers in their tyrannical killer 'God', or I'll have to pull over and take away your nerf bats.
Yes, WallyUK, you are.
Profitsbeard, your subscribing to EDK's same superstition - namely, that belief is irrational - hardly gives you any title to feel superior. So shut up or I'll teach you a little philosophy, whereof you seem in need.
profitsbeard,
Just giving a gentle correction. There is no back seat wrestling going on. Just simply stating the historic facts that are on the ground. Belief is not non-rational, rather is orders one's life and keeps one grounded. Also is making sure that the threads do not get hijack with the purpose of creating a flame war. Consider this a gentle swat of the paw.
Shut up or I'll teach you a little philosophy...
Threat or promise?
Whatever would we do without Paolo to show us the error of our ways? And with such patience and humility.
Paolo,
Thank you for correcting profitsbeard. Keep up the good work.
Philosophy aye?
Sounds like this sort of philosophy
"Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed -
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed." rather than anything patient and forebearing that Boethius (or Job) might recognise.
To quote the TV Scousers, calm down, calm down, calm down.
Granny - you mistake a discipline with an attitude. I will admit that I am not the world's best at striking a grave and thoughtful pose, but I think I know at least enough to answer the profitsbeards, interesteds and EDKs of this world "according to their wisdom" (look up the rest of the quotation in Proverbs).
you mistake a discipline with an attitude
"For", not "with".
It is surprising, Paolo, that you spend so much time at a website populated by your inferiors. However, in our small way, within our own limitations, we are all grateful.
Not Interested: when it comes to arrogance, you could give lessons to President Ahmedinajad, so you will excuse me if I do not feel too crushed by your immensely witty retort.
However, in one thing I was wrong: there is no way to answer you in any way that would register, and no point. Your ears are solid concrete, and what lies between them wood. You will never accept that anyone else knows as much as you - indeed, that anyone else knows anything at all. For which reason you are from henceforth entered into the list of people not to be answered for any reason.
Nobody loves me, everybody hates me
Going down the garden to eat worms
i> what lies between them (her ears) wood.
That's not such an insult actually. Who was it praised the lute, for being made of wood, because of the affinity that all things wooden had with the cross?
There are nearly 100 references (depending on translation, sometimes translated as prudence) to wisdom in Proverbs.
Try The sensible man seeks advice from the wise, (16.21) then A soft answer turns away anger, (16.1) tempered by Pride comes before disaster and arrogance before a fall (16.18). Then, To draw back from a dispute is honourable, it is the fool who bares his teeth. (20.3) Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, groundless abuse gets nowhere. (26.1)
I could go on, there's some smashing stuff in Proverbs.
the Muslim God is not "merciful" either. -Hugh
No, he is indeed not merciful, more like a guy who ties razors to the legs of roosters and sets them out to fight each other to the death for his sick amusement. For surely if he controls all things but choses to lead some astray and requires others to kill them, then he enjoys carnage and is not merciful.
Indoctrination runs rampant without thought.
Fan-of-Hugh
What do you call a man with a wooden head?
Edward.
What do you call a man with three wooden heads?
Edward Woodward.
The above debate is fascinating even if bordering around the edges of the topic. Any belief system must be taken on FAITH. I can never convince anyone empirically of the existence of God (or angels or life after death). Neither can anyone convince me of the non-existence of God, or the afterlife etc. We can offer evidences from philosophy, science, and observation but all of us base our beliefs on our own presuppositions.
What is interesting is how those of us who are religious are willing to honestly admit that we base our worldview on faith while so many athiests and secularists promote the self-delusion that they are being scientific.
If you want to believe that everything is mere coincidence then I will not deny you your faith in nothingness. After all, if nonbelievers are correct, then when I die I have lost nothing but still have gained much from the peace, assurance, morality, and compassion that stems from my "deluded" religion. If, on the other hand, we of Faith are correct, you have only your nonbelief to fall back on and that is a very empty thing to affirm.
ExpatriateDK
"its pretty damn easy to find out whether we danes exist and how many arms and legs we have. It can be scientifically proven in case someone simply refuses to believe"
How do I know that anything I perceive is real. I may be completely delusional and simply imagine the existence of Denmark and Danes. I take it on faith that what I see, touch, taste, and hear is reality and not just a dream.
Perhaps, cats sleep 23 out of 24 hours a day and all that exists stems from their dreams. Prove to me rationally that this is not so?
Even reason is taken on faith. Therefore I am content that my Faith allows me to view the universe as an objective reality with meaning. And since it does have meaning, I am content to seek its Creator.