He stated at the beginning of his lecture that the question he wished to answer was, "Why are we arguing in philosophy whether our life is religious?" Buckley looked at the arguments of prominent 20th-century atheist and agnostic philosophers. He noted that their objections were often based on disagreements with philosophical arguments such as Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. Buckley also pointed out that neither in these modern arguments, nor in the older arguments against which they argued, was there any mention of personal religious experience, or of more abstract conceptions of God. He argued that this became the norm because "the rules for this game were set at the dawn of modernity, and strangely were set by Catholic theologians."
His lecture then moved further back in time to the 17th century, when Catholic theologians began to write defenses of Christianity against what they perceived as the growing danger of atheism. However, Buckley argued, there were in fact no such atheists. "Atheists seem to have been like witches-the object of haunting suspicion and hate, though it's not obvious that there were any," he said. "Catholic theologians were writing against atheists that seem not to have existed."
Some theologians instead argued against atheists from centuries past, while others simply invented atheists to oppose. These theologians decided to argue against atheism from primarily a philosophical standpoint, and Buckley argued that this pattern would "characterize Catholic apologetics for the next 400 years with few exceptions."
Buckley suggested that these philosophical efforts were very much a product of the Renaissance-thinkers were using arguments dating back to Aristotle and Plato, combining them with modern advances in science and adapting them to argue for religion, even at the same time that scientific advances like those of Galileo challenged traditional religious thought. "Not only was science not opposed to religion, the new thought believed that it could establish the foundations of religion better than religion itself," said Buckley.
According to Buckley, however, it was the scientific and philosophical arguments for God that were later challenged by atheists. In addition, the failings of the philosophical arguments, which these apologists had relied upon, allowed for the development of modern atheism. He summarized this progression by stating that "atheism was developed in part by the very strategies designed to combat it."
Buckley said that the lesson to learn from this history was that religion could not survive without reference to religious experience. "Philosophy does not betray the genius of religion. Religion can only betray itself," he said. Buckley clarified that he did not mean to say that philosophical issues should not be considered, but only that they should be considered as just one element of religious thought.
Buckley's lecture filled every seat in the Cole Assembly Hall with students, faculty and other attendees, some of whom had to resort to sitting in the aisles. Buckley answered many questions after the conclusion of his lecture and remained to afterwards to speak with audience members. Zoe Fenson '09, who attended the lecture, appreciated both the question and answer session and Buckley's deviations from his lecture. "When he told anecdotes or answered questions, he became much more engaging and interesting," she said.
The efforts of the Newman Club brought Buckley to the College. Club president James Montana '08 said that he was glad to have the opportunity to have Father Buckley, a prominent theologian, at the College, because "theology is a word one hardly hears at Amherst."
Montana said that the subject of Buckley's lecture was of great personal interest to him, and that he saw Buckley's message as a valuable one for students to hear. "Since it is not, as a matter of experience, obvious that all reasonable people will conclude in favor of God's existence on philosophical grounds, Father Buckley argued that we ought to allow religious experience itself to count as evidence in God's favor," he said.
Rishidev Chaudhuri '06E, felt that Buckley's lecture, though dealing mainly with history, reflected on many issues important today. Buckley referred, both in the lecture and in the question and answer session, to the intelligent design movement, suggesting that its proponents were making similar mistakes to Catholic theologians 300 years ago in trying to provide religion with a scientific foundation. "I loved that he attempted to revive religious consciousness and reasoning as its own beast," said Chaudhuri. "I don't think he's saying that science and religion will never come into conflict. But he's arguing for a specifically religious form of experience and thought that isn't defined, as intelligent design is, in terms of scientific experience and thought."