# Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock



## ClubMan (22 Aug 2007)

Archbishop condemns lack of faith as 'illusion'


> People who put their trust in horoscopes, astrology and mediums lack trust in God and are "colluding with an illusion", a senior Catholic churchman said today.


 How ironic...

Take "lack of" out of the headline and I personally would agree.


----------



## DaveD (23 Aug 2007)

For once I find myself agreeing with Clubman. I can't _believe_ it, must be a God after all


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

> Dr Brady said people were "seeking to control their future rather than entrust their future to God's promise and plan".



Because clearly he's always looked out so well for his followers in the past ...

I guess the Catholic Church is really feeling the pinch if the competition from a few tarot card readers and the like is starting to scare them.


----------



## MrMan (23 Aug 2007)

Having faith has helped more than it has hindered, and he is just preaching from what he clearly believes is correct.


----------



## Vanilla (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> Having faith has helped more than it has hindered


 
That's debatable.


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> Having faith has helped more than it has hindered, and he is just preaching from what he clearly believes is correct.



Well, as Vanilla said, that statement is extremely debatable. Dr. Sean Brady may believe that the Catholic Church "still holds the answer" but the nonsense spouted by Tarot card readers and the scam artists on Psychics Live is just as credible as anything he believes.

Imagine the uproar if he read the same speech but used "Islam" in place of "fortune-tellers"? Even though surely, this is something he also "believes is correct".

As always, the Catholic church plumps for the soft target.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

Apart from the less educated, even the most devout christians agree with non-believers that 'faith' is illogical - most theologists accept this.

Christian (or any) 'faith' has undoubtedly contributed to some good (charities etc) but when it tips over into zeal and beyond, it's hard to accept it's overall value.


----------



## efm (23 Aug 2007)

Typical religious guff - "what I believe in is right, what you believe in is wrong" - let's have a fight over it!

I agree with Clubman - I wonder does anyone in the church realise the irony in saying they collude with an illusion?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> Having faith has helped more than it has hindered


Very much debateable as others have suggested.


> and he is just preaching from what he clearly believes is correct.


Of course he is quite entitled to do this. But others are also entitled to disagree and consider his views contradictory and illogical (e.g. our hocus pocus is better than others' hocus pocus).


----------



## The_Banker (23 Aug 2007)

Thankfully Ireland and the Irish people now take any outburst by the men of cloth for what it is, useless, uninformed twaddle...
Watching RTE's annual repeat of 'Reeling in the years' over the last few nights and seeing the influence the catholic church had in years gone by makes me wonder if my parents generation feel stupid for putting up with catholic interference in there lives...


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Imagine the uproar if he read the same speech but used "Islam" in place of "fortune-tellers"? Even though surely, this is something he also "believes is correct".




I think there is a big leap there from fortune teller to Islam.  Of course there would be total uproar.  Are you sure this is something he also "believes is correct"?  (Note: Im not disagreeing with you, Im just curious as to facts behind this statement).  While Islam is not Catholicism there are many similarities in the area of Faith.  I really dont think that is a statement someone (of any religion) would come out with.

I think most people here, regardless of God/Catholicism, would agree that tarot card readers and fortune tellers are a load of nonsense.  Therefore I dont really see whats so scandalous about the archbishops remarks?  He's not crazy about them either.  You have something in common with him.


----------



## The_Banker (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> I think most people here, regardless of God/Catholicism, would agree that tarot card readers and fortune tellers are a load of nonsense. Therefore I dont really see whats so scandalous about the archbishops remarks? He's not crazy about them either. You have something in common with him.


 
I see no difference in Tarot Card readers/Fortune Teller or the so called teaching of the catholic church...
Tarot card etc is based on *superstition and getting people to hand over money* and the catholic church is based on eh.... *superstition and handing over money....*

Little if no difference from what I can see...

Hence the title of this thread... "Pot calls kettle black"


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

The_Banker said:


> I see no difference in Tarot Card readers/Fortune Teller or the so called teaching of the catholic church...
> Tarot card etc is based on *superstition and getting people to hand over money* and the catholic church is based on eh.... *superstition and handing over money....*
> 
> Little if no difference from what I can see...
> ...



I know you feel like that, many people feel like that. I didnt say you shouldnt feel like that.  Im just pointing out that on the topic of Fortune Tellers/Tarots the Archbishop agrees with you.

I understand why the title is pot kettle black


----------



## MrMan (23 Aug 2007)

I am coming from a stance that i don't practice any form of religion, but I do feel that having something to believe in is important. In times of despair or when feeling at your lowest I do pray for some help to get me through or to help someone else. My point is that faith is like a great hope, something that you can have regardless of your wealth or if you are 'less educated'. Tarot cards etc may be a form of faith, but they generally come with a parting of cash so it would be of my opinion that they are there to con the vulnerable, though i am sure there is also an element who do have great faith in them

what I don't like is that when the church (catholic) is mentioned so many people seem to try to shout them down and say they are a joke, con etc and how foolish were our parents, grandparents etc for letting them have so much power in their day. I do feel that it is simply ignorant to describe ones faith and/or religion as


> useless, uninformed twaddle



Furthermore 





> the catholic church is based on eh.... superstition and handing over money....


a simplistic statement in the extreme


----------



## homeowner (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:
			
		

> I do feel that it is simply ignorant to describe ones faith and/or religion as
> Quote:
> useless, uninformed twaddle


 
Do you mean ignorant as is rude or as in uneducated?


----------



## MrMan (23 Aug 2007)

Rude, education doesn't seem to increase the levels of good manners i'm afriad.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> My point is that faith is like a great hope, something that you can have regardless of your wealth or if you are 'less educated'.


 
Yes.  Anyone can have faith but it still doesn't mean there is any logic or real sense to it. My point was that while some believers accept this, many (mostly less educated) don't even realise this and have never considered or questioned their own 'beliefs'.


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Yes.  Anyone can have faith but it still doesn't mean there is any logic or real sense to it. My point was that while some believers accept this, many (mostly less educated) don't even realise this and have never considered or questioned their own 'beliefs'.



Catholics are encouraged to question their beliefs as part of their religious life/path.


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> I think there is a big leap there from fortune teller to Islam.  Of course there would be total uproar.  Are you sure this is something he also "believes is correct"?  (Note: Im not disagreeing with you, Im just curious as to facts behind this statement).  While Islam is not Catholicism there are many similarities in the area of Faith.  I really dont think that is a statement someone (of any religion) would come out with.



Admittedly, the Archbishop's comments pale in comparison to the biblical instruction he is following



> 27 " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' " (Leviticus 20:27, NIV)


It is impossible to have a duality of faiths - faith is based on believing that one particular religion is the "true" one. So the Archbishop must be similarly disdainful of a growing population of followers of Islam as well as followers of the occult. However, he picks the considerably softer target of the occult for his speech.



casiopea said:


> I think most people here, regardless of God/Catholicism, would agree that tarot card readers and fortune tellers are a load of nonsense.  Therefore I dont really see whats so scandalous about the archbishops remarks?  He's not crazy about them either.  You have something in common with him.



I cannot see how anyone can credibly claim one is nonsense and the other isn't but I guess that's pretty much the basis for all religion.



MrMan said:


> I am coming from a stance that i don't practice any form of religion, but I do feel that having something to believe in is important. In times of despair or when feeling at your lowest I do pray for some help to get me through or to help someone else. My point is that faith is like a great hope, something that you can have regardless of your wealth or if you are 'less educated'. Tarot cards etc may be a form of faith, but they generally come with a parting of cash so it would be of my opinion that they are there to con the vulnerable, though i am sure there is also an element who do have great faith in them.



I've never come across a religion that doesn't want your cash in exchange for something that you cannot redeem until after you die. At least the tarot reader has the decency to deliver the goods upfront. Surely it is incredibly strange "to believe" but not practice? If I thought there was even a 1% chance of the Archbishop's beliefs being true, I'd be a strict adherent to Catholicism (even all the bits that contradict the other bits).


----------



## The_Banker (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> what I don't like is that when the church (catholic) is mentioned so many people seem to try to shout them down and say they are a joke, con etc *and how foolish were our parents, grandparents etc for letting them have so much power in their day.* I do feel that it is simply ignorant to describe ones faith and/or religion as


 
Lets just say our grandparents/great grandparents *weren't foolish* for allowing the catholic hierarchy interfere in their sex lives and allowing them to rule there lives (and I include government in this also) 

Were our forebears and ancestors throughout Europe also not foolish for allowing the catholic church to put people to death because there professed a different faith?

The catholic church are a joke and have lost the respect of most people who have finally woken up to there misguided teachings.


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> It is impossible to have a duality of faiths



I know, I said similarity not duality big difference.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Catholics are encouraged to question their beliefs as part of their religious life/path.


 
OK, but *do* they? 

Even if they do I would guess that this 'questioning' would come from within their existing religious framework/mindset.

E.g. praying to *God* for strength/guidance because of doubts...why oh why *God* is there poverty/suffering etc


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

The_Banker said:


> Thankfully Ireland and the Irish people now take any outburst by the men of cloth for what it is, useless, uninformed twaddle...


_RTÉ _don't and seem to grab every opportunity to drag the local clergy onto the _TV_/radio (usually the news) to give an authoritative opinion on any matter possible (e.g. local tragedy, job losses, socioeconomic issues, moral issues etc.).



casiopea said:


> I think there is a big leap there from fortune teller to Islam.


I disagree. Both involve blind faith and deliberate shunning of logic and reason.



casiopea said:


> Catholics are encouraged to question their beliefs as part of their religious life/path.


Really? I was never encouraged to do this when I underwent _Catholic _brainwashing as a child at school and at home.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Really? I was never encouraged to do this when I underwent _Catholic _brainwashing as a child at school and at home.


 
Maybe intentional? They probably all noticed at an early age that questioning from junior Clubman would only send you further into the hands of the heathens


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

The_Banker said:


> The catholic church are a joke and have lost the respect of most people who have finally woken up to there misguided teachings.



Interesting turn of phrase.  Respect is a very important word.  I think its such a pity that people consider themselves Athetism/Agnostic (which is a spiritual choice in itself) an excuse or license to bash Catholics simply because thats the religion they were brought "forced" up in.   Some people naively claim to be Athetist/Agnostic but they're not, their spiritual path is simply one big grudge against Catholism.  I feel sorry for these people.  

I would never treat your spiritual path with disrespect, please extend me the same courtesy and please extend your parents generation the same courtesy.  Statements like
"useless, uninformed twaddle" and "catholic brainwashing" are disrespectful.  Statements implying that entire generations (parents and grandparents) were foolish - are condescending and dis respectable.

Being an Athetist/Agnostic is a responsibility in itself, please invest your energy in that and not in "catholic bashing".  

Ironically religion like many topics on AAM does come down to this - if you think its a "rip off" dont shop there. 

BUT Please respect other peoples beliefs.


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Really? I was never encouraged to do this when I underwent _Catholic _brainwashing as a child at school and at home.



The disrespectful phrase aside, yes I was, many times.  The first time by a nun in religion class where I went to school (in transition year).  Many times after that.  And I do question my beliefs.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Interesting turn of phrase.  Respect is a very important word.  I think its such a pity that people consider themselves Athetism/Agnostic (which is a spiritual choice in itself) an excuse or license to bash Catholics simply because thats the religion they were brought "forced" up in.   Some people naively claim to be Athetist/Agnostic but they're not, their spiritual path is simply one big grudge against Catholism.  I feel sorry for these people.


I'm sure that such people exist but I don't necessarily see any evidence that there are any here on this thread. Perhaps a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning on your part there? Or simply a good old ad hominem attack?


> I would never treat your spiritual path with disrespect


 Why should beliefs based on blind faith and deliberate shunning of logic and reason necessarily and automatically be afforded "respect"? Personally I believe that anti-scientific beliefs deserve quite the opposite and are fundamentally dangerous.


> Statement like ... "catholic brainwashing" is disrespectful.


 You did not live my childhood so you are in no position to judge my comments on same.


> BUT Please respect other peoples beliefs.


 Everybody is free to believe in whatever they like but this does not mean that others must necessarily or automatically grant these beliefs "respect" or desist from criticising them.


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> You did not live my childhood so you are in no position to judge my comments on same.



Clubman, I made no statement about your childhood.


----------



## The_Banker (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Interesting turn of phrase. Respect is a very important word. I think its such a pity that people consider themselves Athetism/Agnostic (which is a spiritual choice in itself) an excuse or license to bash Catholics simply because thats the religion they were brought "forced" up in. Some people naively claim to be Athetist/Agnostic but they're not, their spiritual path is simply one big grudge against Catholism. I feel sorry for these people.
> 
> I would never treat your spiritual path with disrespect, please extend me the same courtesy and please extend your parents generation the same courtesy. Statements like
> "useless, uninformed twaddle" and "catholic brainwashing" are disrespectful. Statements implying that entire generations (parents and grandparents) were foolish - are condescending and dis respectable.
> ...


 
This is my opinion. I don't like the catholic church. I have no time for them and the quicker they self destruct (which thankfully they are) the better for my liking.
My feelings have nothing to do with the Athetist/Agnostic system of belief/non belief but simply with my absolute hatred for the catholic church for the harm they have done to the people of this country (You don't need me to go into details here, or do you?) down through the years and the poision they tried to put into my brain in my primary school years.


----------



## casiopea (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Eh? You seem to be answering some question that was not asked. I merely stated my own experience and how it conflicted with what you stated earlier. I did not ask about yours.



My mistake, I thought you were asking me a question, sincere apologies. Feel free to delete it if you feel its off topic.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

In fairness I think Casiopea may have been responding to the "really?" element of Clubman's post - which sort of invites a response.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

The_Banker said:


> my absolute hatred for the catholic church for the harm they have done to the people of this country (You don't need me to go into details here, or do you?) down through the years and the poision they tried to put into my brain in my primary school years.


Well there's somebody who is nailing his colours to the cross, sorry, mast!


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> In fairness I think Casiopea may have been responding to the "really?" element of Clubman's post - which sort of invites a response.


Sorry - that was meant to be rhetorical and I have delete a post of mine now that renders some of the above confusing. Never mind - no big deal in the wider context of this thread.


----------



## MOB (23 Aug 2007)

I am a little surprised by the strength of reaction from non\non-practising\lapsed\disillusioned Catholics to this story.    

There are occasions when the Catholic Church wades into (or indeed starts) a debate on issues of public policy (education, social inequality and so on).  This can give rise to the accusation that the Church is interfering in matters outside its proper jurisdiction - and althaough I think it is not a black and white issue, I must acknowledge that that is a reasonable argument to make.   

However, what we have here is a sermon delivered by a Catholic Bishop to a Cathoic congregation who were gathered at a Catholic Shrine.  If the Catholic Church tells its members to stop going to tarot card readers, to eat fish on Friday, to wear purple underwear on Tuesdays, or indeed to do or abstain from anything else which does not break any laws or impinge upon the non-Catholic members of our society, that is uniquely the Church's business.  

Like most religions, Catholicism is not a democracy:  if you want to be a Catholic, there are rules.  If you are not, and don't want to be, a Catholic, their rules are of no concern to you as long as they don't impinge on you. 

As long as Catholics do not try to impose their rules and teachings on others, what is there to discuss?  In short, I don't see how this is even a matter for discussion or comment by anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Berlin (23 Aug 2007)

Religious belief, of whatever denomination or kind, is by its very nature an act of faith. There has never been any evidence to prove it, therfore it remains unproven. It is therefore a theory, and like all other theories is open to debate, and criticism.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

A theory/hypothesis with very little supporting evidence though.


----------



## Berlin (23 Aug 2007)

As I said, there has never been any evidence.


----------



## Pique318 (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Catholics are encouraged to question their beliefs as part of their religious life/path.


 
Just not tooo intensely !


----------



## Gordanus (23 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> I think its such a pity that people consider themselves Athetism/Agnostic (which is a spiritual choice in itself) an excuse or license to bash Catholics simply because thats the religion they were brought "forced" up in.



I'd have to disagree with this.  It's an ANTI-spiritual choice: we do not believe in any spirits whatsoever, whether God, Allah, Jehovah, Thor, Jupiter, the Great God Pan or the Great Spaghetti Monster..........I do not have a spiritual side; I have a humanistic side; my need for awe is fulfilled by my contemplation of nature, of the mysteries which we still study.  The complexity of life on earth as it is now when it stared off with primordial sludge, the expanding universe.  But this is not faith of any kind.


----------



## The_Banker (23 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> As long as Catholics do not try to impose their rules and teachings on others, what is there to discuss? In short, I don't see how this is even a matter for discussion or comment by anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church.


 
As long as RTE Television and Radio (to whom I pay €158 each year) give the catholic hierarchy a platform to speak I believe I can also attempt to dispell some of the propaganda they (the bishops) distribute.


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> As long as Catholics do not try to impose their rules and teachings on others, what is there to discuss?  In short, I don't see how this is even a matter for discussion or comment by anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church.



Fair point but at least allow us poke a little fun from the sidelines.


----------



## homeowner (23 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> As long as Catholics do not try to impose their rules and teachings on others, what is there to discuss?


Catholic rules and teachings are imposed on every patient in hospitals around the country. And in most primary schools.




MOB said:


> In short, I don't see how this is even a matter for discussion or comment by anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church.


 
Hmmmmm.....the article is on breakingnews.ie and probably in the national newspapers but its no ones business to comment on it except catholics?  Thats a very strange position to take.  So only people directly involved in or affected by a news story are allowed to discuss and comment?


----------



## polaris (23 Aug 2007)

Perhaps the bishop is travelling a path towards enlightenment and the first step is his acknowledgement that tarot cards, horoscopes etc are irrational.

Now, hopefully, he can follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion.


----------



## nelly (23 Aug 2007)

homeowner said:


> Catholic rules and teachings are imposed on every patient in hospitals around the country. And in most primary schools.


 
and at birth when the church force parents and infants into church for baptisms? the country is full of al a carte catholics who knock at every turn but run for the priest when they want to get married in Church, bury someone, baptise their darling for a celebration etc etc this thread i suspect has attracted a few too. 

i listened to the programme and thought that it was bias to have him on preaching instead of discribing the Knock vigil this week or whatever it was surely that was the presenter who allowed this to happen? what he said was not really what could be considered objectionable IMO to others but then i am catholic myself. 

would the message have been so bad if delivered by someone other than a cleric?


----------



## MOB (23 Aug 2007)

"Hmmmmm.....the article is on breakingnews.ie and probably in the national newspapers but its no ones business to comment on it except catholics? 

Thats a very strange position to take. So only people directly involved in or affected by a news story are allowed to discuss and comment?"


I have to disagree.  Of course they are allowed to comment; It is just strange, and in my view inappropriate, that they would feel the need to comment.  Perhaps an analogy will illustrate my point:

1.   The horse racing industry is well covered in our national print media.   I don't follow horses and have no interest whatever in gambling;  Many other people do.  I have no objection to the horse racing industry getting newspaper coverage - it does not affect me.  

2    If the bloodstock industry wants tax breaks for bookies or government subsidies to racecourses, and there is a debate on the issue, then as a taxpayer I certainly feel entitled to state my views.  So there are issues with the racing industry which are of concern to people outside racing, and are fit for universal comment.

3.   If the racing authorities decide that they are not going to hold race meetings on Tuesdays, it would be decidedly odd that I - as a person who never goes to such meetings and am not in any way affected - would feel it appropriate to voice any opinion on the matter.   If I posted my trenchant views on such an issue, having first explained that I have absolutely no interest in participating in a race meeting on a Tuesday or any other day, you would be perfectly entitled to ask me why on earth I felt the need to comment on something which was clearly none of my business.  This is, after all, an issue which is only of concern to those who actually participate in horse racing. 

There are issues involving the Catholic Church which are appropriate for debate in a wider arena;  The particular sermon mentioned at the outset does not seem to raise any such issue.   

So yes, in response to comments on at least some issues (this being one) from non-Catholics, I think it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to ask why they even feel entitled to comment on something which is clearly none of their business.  

This is not a dig at, or personal criticism of, any of the contributors - it is clear that many people feel differently on this issue.  It may be argued that the Catholic Church in Ireland is today reaping what it sowed, in that anybody and everybody feels entitled to knock the Catholic Church.  I think this is simply part of our transition from a society where the Catholic Church had too much power.    I think that both Catholics and non-Catholics will ultimately find it more congenial to have a society where most of Catholic teaching is not a matter for public debate, but rather a matter for Catholics only.


----------



## annR (23 Aug 2007)

MOB, if I follow your line of reasoning I can still think of a situation where non-Catholics would feel entitled to comment . . . if they believe in tarot readers and horoscopes.  Perhaps they feel threatened by the archbishops comments and are defending their belief systems.


----------



## Berlin (23 Aug 2007)

If I were a non-Catholic who had an opinion on tarot readers, woulld I be entitled to comment?


----------



## Berlin (23 Aug 2007)

You beat me to it Ann!


----------



## MrMan (23 Aug 2007)

> Yes. Anyone can have faith but it still doesn't mean there is any logic or real sense to it. My point was that while some believers accept this, many (mostly less educated) don't even realise this and have never considered or questioned their own 'beliefs'



I guess the fundamental element to faith is the absense of logic, sometimes it is easier for people to not question their own beliefs for they may be left with a void - i'm not saying that is right.




> Were our forebears and ancestors throughout Europe also not foolish for allowing the catholic church to put people to death because there professed a different faith?



Yes history will throw up many things that seem hideous to us now but were perfectly normal at the time, such a sthe hunger for public executions, but it hardly makes for an argument against today's church does it.



> I've never come across a religion that doesn't want your cash in exchange for something that you cannot redeem until after you die. At least the tarot reader has the decency to deliver the goods upfront. Surely it is incredibly strange "to believe" but not practice?



You can go to church and are encouraged to make an offering, but there is no fee or any charge, you don't pay for confession, I don't think tarot readers in general give freebies, but i could be wrong. I do not practice my religion, but i may return to do so in time. i do question many aspects of the church and don't agree with alot of its teachings, but I do have faith - it might be hard to understand my stance, but thats all there is to it.




> Everybody is free to believe in whatever they like but this does not mean that others must necessarily or automatically grant these beliefs "respect" or desist from criticising them.



I agree, but why can't people criticise respectfully?





> My feelings have nothing to do with the Athetist/Agnostic system of belief/non belief but simply with my absolute hatred for the catholic church for the harm they have done to the people of this country (You don't need me to go into details here, or do you?) down through the years and the poision they tried to put into my brain in my primary school years.



The catholic church has had to answer many questions and lost alot of members due to the terrible actions of many of its priests and bishops and indeed further up the hierarchy, but i do think the church goes much deeper than the men empowered to deliver its message, I didn't receive any poison into my brain at school so I can't comment on that, but I do feel that the church is the softest target of them all and many people enjoy the bandwagon.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> I guess the fundamental element to faith is the absense of logic, sometimes it is easier for people to not question their own beliefs for they may be left with a void - i'm not saying that is right.


 
Well that's one thing we seem to agree on!


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> You can go to church and are encouraged to make an offering, but there is no fee or any charge, you don't pay for confession, I don't think tarot readers in general give freebies, but i could be wrong. I do not practice my religion, but i may return to do so in time. i do question many aspects of the church and don't agree with alot of its teachings, but I do have faith - it might be hard to understand my stance, but thats all there is to it.



Yes, I can see the distinction alright but I don't think it is a huge one. I'm sure the church takes as a dim a view of freeloaders as tarot card readers would if they offered a similar payment structure.

Plus, as I mentioned previously, the tarot card readers deliver their product upfront. The church generally doesn't allow you to collect until you die. For specific value-added services - funerals, weddings, those masses they say for people after they die (apologies but the name escapes me) - the payment is mandatory.

Perhaps I'm interpreting his comments incorrectly, but it just sounded to me like he was afraid of the growing competition and decided to focus on the softest target among his competitors.


----------



## michaelm (23 Aug 2007)

It seems to me that Catholicism is about compassion and hope.  That it is not evidence based - beyond the historical fact that a man named This post will be deleted if not edited immediately suggested, about 2000 years ago, that people might be civil to each other, and was nailed to a cross for his troubles - does not trouble me unduly.  

I understand that the entanglements of Church and State in Ireland vexes some people however I feel that their ire should be directed towards the State in this regard.  I appreciate that those of no faith sometimes feel compelled to express their view that it's all a bit silly really, however, I do feel that it costs nothing to express such views in a civil if not respectful manner.  And of course quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.


----------



## MOB (23 Aug 2007)

"For specific value-added services - funerals, weddings, those masses they say for people after they die (apologies but the name escapes me) - the payment is mandatory."

Not in the Catholic Church I went to as a child. Perhaps in some individual parishes, and perhaps more commonly so now than before.  But I think that where payments are on some sort of a prescribed scale,  most such payments are expected, rather than demanded and I doubt that they are ever insisted upon.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> Plus, as I mentioned previously, the tarot card readers deliver their product upfront.


This sort of stuff is a pure rip-off as it can never deliver what it promises (e.g. predicting the future etc.).


----------



## Pique318 (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> This sort of stuff is a pure rip-off as it can never deliver what it promises (e.g. predicting the future etc.).


 
Allegedly....(yer honour)


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> This sort of stuff is a pure rip-off as it can never deliver what it promises (e.g. predicting the future etc.).



The Catholic Church promises _eternal salvation_, are you telling me they can deliver? I think with these things people just want to feel reassured. A psychic who only ever delivers bad news probably won't get much repeat business. I imagine (or I would hope at any rate) that even the people paying for psychic services don't believe these people can _actually_ predict the future.

Otherwise, I sure people would be asking about lottery numbers rather than tall dark handsome strangers!



MOB said:


> "For specific value-added services - funerals, weddings, those masses they say for people after they die (apologies but the name escapes me) - the payment is mandatory."
> 
> Not in the Catholic Church I went to as a child. Perhaps in some individual parishes, and perhaps more commonly so now than before.  But I think that where payments are on some sort of a prescribed scale,  most such payments are expected, rather than demanded and I doubt that they are ever insisted upon.



I admire your optimism. See how much luck you'd have if you asked a priest to marry you and told him you didn't plan on paying him. Not that I don't think they should get paid for the service they provide - just that I don't think it is a difference you can really point to between the church and tarot card reading or other jiggery-pokery.


----------



## MrMan (24 Aug 2007)

I think I'm enmbroiled in a church defence here except my initial argument was that faith has helped alot of people and I believe more than it has hindered. I do believe some priests have great faith in their ideologies and would only want to do well onto others while some other priests are simply nasty men that can be found in any institution. I don't think that the priests and their latest legacy have anything to do with faith per se, nor the constant interference from the church in modern day matters. 



> The Catholic Church promises eternal salvation, are you telling me they can deliver? I think with these things people just want to feel reassured. A psychic who only ever delivers bad news probably won't get much repeat business. I imagine (or I would hope at any rate) that even the people paying for psychic services don't believe these people can actually predict the future.



again this is a very simplistic approach to the subject, as church goers don't go simply to save their souls.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> I think I'm enmbroiled in a church defence here except my initial argument was that faith has helped alot of people and I believe more than it has hindered. I do believe some priests have great faith in their ideologies and would only want to do well onto others while some other priests are simply nasty men that can be found in any institution. I don't think that the priests and their latest legacy have anything to do with faith per se, nor the constant interference from the church in modern day matters.



I'm not sure I understand fully what faith means except as some kind of willing act of suspending disbelief in order to believe what would appear to be impossible. From my understanding of your posts, you have leapt to the defence of _faith_ in general, and ended up in the position of defending the Catholic church specifically which was not your intention. I don't agree that faith serves any great purpose, and see little distinction between faith in a Christian God and faith in palmistry as a means of predicting the future.

Hence, my taking amusement in the peddler of one particular brand of faith warning his devotees against the dangers of another rival brand. I was not in the least surprised to see him pick on the weakest rival - the new age/mystical/occult sphere, and not challenge the stronger rivals of Judaism, Islam and alternative Christian sects.



MrMan said:


> again this is a very simplistic approach to the subject, as church goers don't go simply to save their souls.



Yes but surely the object of attending is specifically for that purpose - the other factors, such as it being a social outlet, sense of community etc. are extraneous benefits. I can't imagine there are many church goers who don't believe in the afterlife/heaven and the ability of following a Catholic way of life to get them there.

Incidentally - did anyone hear the debate on the "Last word" on this issue? It featured David Quinn challenging Tom Higgins (CEO of Irish Psychics Live) challenging Higgins to have his claims pass the "Richard Dawkins Test" and demanding he substantiate them with "scientific evidence". Funny stuff.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Aug 2007)

I am a Catholic, semi-lapsed I suppose you'd call it. Over the last 7 years in my family we have had, among other things, two funerals, a wedding and a christening. On every occasion we asked what contribution to make. On every occasion the priests ( there were three separate priests, Irish and French) were at pains to point out that payment was not obligatory, that if we couldn't afford it we had no need to pay anything.


----------



## MrMan (24 Aug 2007)

Ya I caught some of that, and i agree that when you examine christian beliefs it is hard to give a clear argument , because there is no evidence. 

Your right about my stance insofar as I believe faith can be good for people, but I should have added not blind faith as in unwillingly to listen to an argument. I suppose I could be accused of blurring the lines between hope and faith because I do believe that in times of despair people do cling to believes that they thought were redundant. 

My guess is this is an argument that has too many loopholes to be narrowed down.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

Vanilla said:


> On every occasion the priests ( there were three separate priests, Irish and French) were at pains to point out that payment was not obligatory, that if we couldn't afford it we had no need to pay anything.


Wonder why they could not simply have said "no payment needed thanks" rather than inserting the "if you couldn't afford it" rider? On the other hand these sort of financial dealings are obviously a matter for the parties involved and ultimately no business of mine as a non member of the organizations involved.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> The Catholic Church promises _eternal salvation_, are you telling me they can deliver?


No - my specific criticism of fortune tellers etc. was not meant to imply that I thought that religious were any better.


----------



## michaelm (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Wonder why they could not simply have said "no payment needed thanks" rather than inserting the "if you couldn't afford it" rider?


We've had five Christenings, no payment sought nor tendered, although I  have no problem with any suggestion for voluntary donations;  after all, it costs money to run any organization and who better than it's members to fund it.  Indeed AAM has a 'Support Askaboutmoney.com! [Make a Donation]' tag at the end of each page, but I am untroubled by this.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

michaelm said:


> Indeed AAM has a 'Support Askaboutmoney.com! [Make a Donation]' tag at the end of each page, but I am untroubled by this.


Yeah - but at least with _AAM _you get something tangible for your money or for free if you choose not to donate - and not just promises of a better hereafter etc.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> No - my specific criticism of fortune tellers etc. was not meant to imply that I thought that religious were any better.



Well no disagreement here then. A clear rip-off as neither churches nor fortune tellers can deliver what they explicitly promise. However, they do appear to deliver what is _implicitly_ promised - reassurance, a sense of connectivity or whatever it is makes people buy these services.

That said, I don't believe the customers actually expect the seller to deliver. It's not as though the consumer agency is inundated with complaints from customers who never met a tall, dark, handsome, stranger ...


----------



## casiopea (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I'm sure that such people exist but I don't necessarily see any evidence that there are any here on this thread. Perhaps a bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning on your part there? Or simply a good old ad hominem attack?



Hi Clubman,

I missed this yesterday.  That statement wasnt an attack on you, or on anyone in particular in this thread for that matter.  In all my posts on AAM Ive always tried to remain within guidelines and (homiem) attacking is not my style.
The statement is a reflection of a certain type of "Atheist" that I meet a lot.  My general point is that type of Atheist (the Catholic-grudge type) do as much dis-service to Atheists and Agnostics as they do Catholics.



ClubMan said:


> Why should beliefs based on blind faith and deliberate shunning of logic and reason necessarily and automatically be afforded "respect"? Personally I believe that anti-scientific beliefs deserve quite
> the opposite and are fundamentally dangerous.



I am not talking about respecting Catholicism/Catholic Church or any religion. I am talking about respecting the fact that people are different and practice different things and have the right to even if someone else think its a mistake.   This does not mean that I feel religion/church/atheism shouldnt be challenged.  It should, in a respectful manner.  Phrases like "useless"/"twaddle" are not respectful nor good debate.  

A whole other debate we can take on  is your point there about anti-scientific.   For the record I am also a scientific person.  Science and religion for me both contradict and compliment.  Like brother and sister, they dont get on but they are related.  Another day perhaps.

Have a nice weekend,
Casiopea.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> This does not mean that I feel religion/church/atheism shouldnt be challenged.  It should, in a respectful manner.  Phrases like "useless"/"twaddle" are not respectful nor good debate.


Fair enough - as far as I know the only contentious term that I used was  "brainwashed" but this was simply an accurate description of the case in point and not used just to cause controversy in spite of you finding it "disrespectful".


----------



## casiopea (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Fair enough - as far as I know the only contentious term that I used was  "brainwashed" but this was simply an accurate description of the case in point and not used just to cause controversy in spite of you finding it "disrespectful".



Yes, I saw that I misunderstood the context, a mixture of the downside of debating online and me reading/scanning too quickly. 

The mistreatment of any child by any institution is the highest form of betrayal - I think you'll find we'll all agree on that!


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> The mistreatment of any child by any institution is the highest form of betrayal - I think you'll find we'll all agree on that!


Yes - but some argue that religious indoctrination of children (who are not in a position to make an informed decision) itself is fundamentally a mistreatment or abuse.


----------



## casiopea (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Yes - but some argue that religious indoctrination of children (who are not in a position to make an informed decision) itself is fundamentally a mistreatment or abuse.



Lets do it another day ClubMan


----------



## annR (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Yeah - but at least with _AAM _you get something tangible for your money or for free if you choose not to donate - and not just promises of a better hereafter etc.


 
If you are having a wedding or a christening or a funeral you get the use of the church (heating, light, cleaners, flowers etc) and the priest's time and that of his secretary if he has one.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Aug 2007)

I believe that apart from the religious side priests play a very practical role in parishes and helping their parishioners. I don't believe that I have any indepth knowledge of priests and their work but I have seen them visit the elderly, terminally ill, sick, housebound and just plain lonely and bring comfort by just being there and being someone to listen. They organise events that bring the parish together. They help celebrate some of the most happy occasions in our lives, births, weddings and so on. 

I don't know how much they are paid but I know it's not a fortune. I wouldn't begrudge them voluntary contributions.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I don't know how much they are paid but I know it's not a fortune. I wouldn't begrudge them voluntary contributions.



Neither would I, voluntary or not. They provide a service to their members and have a right to expect payment for that service. I was merely trying to counter a claim that a major difference between organised religion and new age psycho-babble was that organised religion didn't demand money for the service it provided. It would appear from the replies that they mightn't necessarily demand it, but they may well expect it (with an exemption for those who cannot afford to pay).


----------



## zag (24 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Yeah - but at least with _AAM _you get something tangible for your money or for free if you choose not to donate - and not just promises of a better hereafter etc.



Clubman - can you quantify the tangible 'something' people get from AAM ?  I don't doubt that it's a 'good', but I can't measure it, I can't weigh it, I can't value it, I can't see it . . . does it exist ?

Would it be good and bad advice, help getting through some of lifes complications, a sense of community and shared values, advice on how to deal with issues, etc . . . a little like some of the ancilliary functions which members of various churches receive perhaps.

z


----------



## Vanilla (24 Aug 2007)

zag said:


> Clubman - can you quantify the tangible 'something' people get from AAM ? I don't doubt that it's a 'good', but I can't measure it, I can't weigh it, I can't value it, I can't see it . . . does it exist ?
> 
> Would it be good and bad advice, help getting through some of lifes complications, a sense of community and shared values, advice on how to deal with issues, etc . . . a little like some of the ancilliary functions which members of various churches receive perhaps.
> 
> z


 
Well said.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

zag said:


> Clubman - can you quantify the tangible 'something' people get from AAM ?  I don't doubt that it's a 'good', but I can't measure it, I can't weigh it, I can't value it, I can't see it . . . does it exist ?


I guess you can measure it indirectly - e.g.
Money saved using budgeting tricks posted here
Money earned from savings/investments you might not otherwise have known about
Blood pressure levels while reading _The Depths _forums
Etc.



> Would it be good and bad advice, help getting through some of lifes complications, a sense of community and shared values, advice on how to deal with issues, etc


 That too - except usually without the bias or constraints imposed by a rigid belief system involving mystical beings and other associated hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.


----------



## annR (24 Aug 2007)

Clubman

You said earlier when challenged by casiopeaabout being disrepectful



> Fair enough - as far as I know the only contentious term that I used was "brainwashed" but this was simply an accurate description of the case in point and not used just to cause controversy in spite of you finding it "disrespectful".


 

You're at it again with this 



> That too - except usually without the bias or constraints imposed by a rigid belief system involving mystical beings and other associated hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo.


 
I can't really put it any better than casiopea did



> I am not talking about respecting Catholicism/Catholic Church or any religion. I am talking about respecting the fact that people are different and practice different things and have the right to even if someone else think its a mistake. This does not mean that I feel religion/church/atheism shouldnt be challenged. It should, in a respectful manner. Phrases like "useless"/"twaddle" are not respectful nor good debate.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

annR said:


> You said earlier when challenged by casiopeaabout being disrepectful



I don't think it necessarily disrespectful to call religion mumbo jumbo - that's ClubMan's belief. If I mentioned I believed in fairies and elves people nobody would feel the need to tip-toe around it, or make believe there was some kind of credibility to my claim.


----------



## casiopea (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I don't think it necessarily disrespectful to call religion mumbo jumbo - that's ClubMan's belief. If I mentioned I believed in fairies and elves people nobody would feel the need to tip-toe around it, or make believe there was some kind of credibility to my claim.



Having respect for something is not the same as tip-toeing around it. You can say everything you wish/believe only edit jibes/taunts/mockery/insults.  Your point in turn will have more credibility.


----------



## polaris (27 Aug 2007)

Ironically this thread was started to discuss a bishop's attack on the growing popularity of astrology etc.

If that attack wasn't being disrespectful to those who believe in this type of supernaturalism, then I don't know what is!


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> Having respect for something is not the same as tip-toeing around it. You can say everything you wish/believe only edit jibes/taunts/mockery/insults.  Your point in turn will have more credibility.



What jibes? If you look up the dictionary definition of the term "mumbo jumbo" you will see that it could not possibly be construed as offensive.

From Webster's online dictionary



> *1* *:* an object of superstitious homage and fear
> *2 a* *:* a complicated often ritualistic observance with elaborate trappings *b* *:* complicated activity or language usually intended to obscure and confuse
> *3* *:* unnecessarily involved and incomprehensible language*[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]*
> *4* *:* language, behavior, or beliefs based on superstition



Why do followers of a religious doctrine feel they should be automatically afforded respect not shown to any other scientifically groundless ideologies such as the belief in fairies, elves, guardian angels, astrology, palmisty, homeopathy and so forth?


----------



## casiopea (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> What jibes? If you look up the dictionary definition of the term "mumbo jumbo" you will see that it could not possibly be construed as offensive.



I never said mumbo jumbo was a jibe.  It was the phrase "tip-toeing" that I was responding to.  Discussing something respectfully does not require tiptoeing around a topic.



> Why do followers of a religious doctrine feel they should be automatically afforded respect not shown to any other scientifically groundless ideologies such as the belief in fairies, elves, guardian angels, astrology, palmisty, homeopathy and so forth?



Clubman asked a similiar question up above which Ive already responded to.


----------



## Caveat (27 Aug 2007)

Regardless of dictionary definition, I think the term 'mumbo jumbo' is more than merely descriptive - to me, it has a pejorative function in everyday use.

I am neither a practicing catholic nor a christian and would have plenty of criticisms for both - but I think if posters are honest, terms like mumbo jumbo are intended to provoke are they not?


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Regardless of dictionary definition, I think the term 'mumbo jumbo' is more than merely descriptive - to me, it has a pejorative function in everyday use.





casiopea said:


> I never said mumbo jumbo was a jibe.  It was the phrase "tip-toeing" that I was responding to.  Discussing something respectfully does not require tiptoeing around a topic.



Point noted on both, it was not my intention to provoke, nor to deliberately cause offence. In future I shall try and use less colloquial expressions.


----------



## Welfarite (27 Aug 2007)

Dr Brady called "future telling" the "new Irish superstition". Perhaps he would like to tell us what the old one was?


----------



## polaris (27 Aug 2007)

David Quinn has a column supporting the bishop in today's Indo.

*http://tinyurl.com/3x8kup*

Apparently it is atheists who are responsible for the increased interest in new age "mumbo jumbo". Quinn is no shrinking violet when it comes to using perjorative/provocative terms 

I personally would have been more interested in "a defence of the supernatural claims of Christianity" but he ducks that completely. 
Finally, he uses the fact that Christianity has an ethical system to lay down a challenge to Richard Dawkins.

I don't think Dawkins will be quaking in his boots!


----------



## shanegl (27 Aug 2007)

Dawkins is a hack anyway. His grasp of philosophy is tenuous at best.


----------



## Caveat (27 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> Dawkins is a hack anyway. His grasp of philosophy is tenuous at best.


 
Personally, I wouldn't feel qualified to confidently defend or attack Dawkins comprehensively but I've heard/seen him make mincemeat of various theologians/critics.


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

polaris said:


> David Quinn has a column supporting the bishop in today's Indo.



I too would have been interested in a "defence of the supernatural claims of Christianity" and look forward to seeing them in a future column. Although if it is anything like his previous defence of creationism, I'd best not be doing so with breath that is bated.



> Rather than mount a defence of the supernatural claims of Christianity in the short space left, I'll simply limit myself to pointing out a gigantic qualitative difference between Christianity and the various forms of fortune telling listed by Archbishop Brady.
> 
> It is this: Christianity is an ethical system as well as being a religion, and the various forms of fortune telling are not. They offer no ethical guidance whatsoever.




There is not a shred of evidence (and little pro-offered even by advocates) to verify the belief that religion encourages ethical behaviour. Quinn usually goes a step further - claiming that those without religion struggle to differentiate between right and wrong. When queried about atheists who are model citizens, Quinn generally claims they have benefitted from coming from a culture "steeped in Catholicism".

To my mind, people who claim they need religion to understand right and wrong, good and bad etc., tell us more about their own tenuous grip on morality than anything else.


----------



## polaris (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> There is not a shred of evidence (and little pro-offered even by advocates) to verify the belief that religion encourages ethical behaviour.


 

Agreed, there is mounting evidence that the sense of right and wrong is actually "hard-wired" into the human brain, probably as a side-effect of the development of consciousness during evolution.


----------



## casiopea (27 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> There is not a shred of evidence (and little pro-offered even by advocates) to verify the belief that religion encourages ethical behaviour.



I disagree with this - religion does encourage ethical behavior but I would agree that doesn't imply all religious people are ethical - if you see my point?



room305 said:


> Quinn usually goes a step further - claiming that those without religion struggle to differentiate between right and wrong. When queried about atheists who are model citizens, Quinn generally claims they have benefitted from coming from a culture "steeped in Catholicism".



I strongly disagree with this.  A very condescending remark, extremely disrespectful to Atheists,  that I doubt he can back up and I very much doubt most Catholics would stand by it.


----------



## redstar (27 Aug 2007)

polaris said:


> Agreed, there is mounting evidence that the sense of right and wrong is actually "hard-wired" into the human brain, probably as a side-effect of the development of consciousness during evolution.



Exactly. 

If people can only sense right-from-wrong because of the existence of a supernatural creator, then what would happen if God said "From tomorrow, you may kill anyone who disagrees with you" ?
Would it still be wrong to kill tomorrow just as it is today ? According to David Quinn (among others, its an old argument repeated, despite being frequently answered)  we cannot distinguish right-from-wrong ourselves - we must be told. The logical extension to this is that if we are told to kill by God, then it must be right to do so. Indeed, many fundamentalists already believe this and act accordingly. This is not to say everyone would go and kill someone, but what _internally_ would stop them ? A sense of right-from-wrong ?


----------



## Remix (27 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> Dawkins is a hack anyway. His grasp of philosophy is tenuous at best.


 
The thing I find off-putting about Dawkins is what seems an almost lunatic hatred of religion - Catholicism especially. And don't get him started female aspects such as nuns or dogma on Mary - it's spitballs of anger galore.

A lot of the contempt and hostile language you come across in these discussions on the web seems to be emulating his style - even though Dawkins himself has shown an awareness that this might be creating an image problem for him.

I think just like spitting against the wind, this can come back on you and it can come across as desperation rather than the victorious emergence of a world view.


----------



## redstar (27 Aug 2007)

Remix said:


> ...even though Dawkins himself has shown an awareness that this might be creating an image problem for him.



I agree his style wouldn't exactly win over too many religious 'believers'. In a way, his message is being delivered exactly like a traditional religious Archbishop/priest/rabbi/mullah etc ... except, they do it from a pulpit every Sunday/Saturday and 'believers' are expected to attend as a 'duty'. When Dawkins does it, he's being extremist and almost lunatic. (Double-standards, i think). As a minority shouting against irrationality, i'm not surprised he is using 'in-your-face' tactics just to be heard. Unfortunately, this approach can be counter-productive, and I wish he would tone it down a bit and use more persuasion rather than sometimes hectoring.


----------



## MOB (27 Aug 2007)

"There is not a shred of evidence (and little pro-offered even by advocates) to verify the belief that religion encourages ethical behaviour."

I am astonished firstly that such a comment could be advanced as a serious proposition and secondly that another contributor would blithely agree.   Ethics and organised religion have been philosophical bedfellows for a long time now.  Surely it cannot be seriously disputed that the Christian ten commandments are, by and large, an encouragement to ethical behaviour.


----------



## MOB (27 Aug 2007)

..


----------



## z109 (27 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> Ethics and organised religion have been philosophical bedfellows for a long time now.  Surely it cannot be seriously disputed that the Christian ten commandments are, by and large, an encouragement to ethical behaviour.



Sadly, organised religion has not always been an encouragement to ethical behaviour. The ten commandments do not provide an ethical response to their breaking. Organised religion has jumped into that gap to tell us who to lock up, who to move on, who to stone etc.

Ethics were around long before christianity. The fact that the two have co-existed in the same philosophical space does not correlate them.

It can be argued that confessional religions in fact encourage the opposite, with their belief that your sins can be washed away by, for example, buying one of these indulgences, or climbing this mounting, or standing in this square while a bloke in a dress talks over your heads in latin.


----------



## room305 (28 Aug 2007)

casiopea said:


> I disagree with this - religion does encourage ethical behavior but I would agree that doesn't imply all religious people are ethical - if you see my point?





MOB said:


> Ethics and organised religion have been philosophical bedfellows for a long time now.  Surely it cannot be seriously disputed that the Christian ten commandments are, by and large, an encouragement to ethical behaviour.



Religious organisations certainly do claim to encourage ethical behaviour. However, if they are successful it is not in any statistically significant way and that's before we consider the people who use religion as a cloak to obfuscate quite evil behaviour.

The ten commandments (the version from Exodus 20 rather than Deuteronomy or Exodus 34) include 3 admonishments to follow God and not other 'false' gods - including the rather loosely defined "any likeness of any thing[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]_"_[/FONT], a command not to work on Sundays and the rather misogynistic command to not desire your neighbour's wife, ox, ass, slaves or any other 'property' belonging to him. So you're left with honouring your mother and father (sans any caveat - what if they ask you to commit murder or steal?), not committing adultery, not to "bear false witness" and the disputed commandment not to kill (some scholars believe it should be translated as "commit murder" or even "kidnap").

So out of 10 commandments, only 3 can be said to have any real merit. I would venture that most Christians don't know the ten commandments - surveys conducted have shown that more Christians believe in space aliens than know the ten commandments! - and I would feel pity for anyone that actually does need a celestial dictator to prevent them from concoting lies, stealing or murdering.


----------



## Vanilla (28 Aug 2007)

Did anyone else see the Cousins lady on TV3 this morning? I just sat down to have a coffee and was about to switch over when this lady came on complaining of poultergeists in her Dublin Corporation house. If it wasn't so sad it would have been funny. She went on to describe the haunting- things moving across the floor, the oven being on, the heating being switched on, footsteps upstairs...her husband died some years ago and she has children, I forget how many. Anyway another lady came with her- she was from ''psychics.ie'' There was talk of vortexes, chakhras ( spelling?) and light coming from Mrs. Cousin's head. I could hardly believe the depths TV3 had stooped to. Then they switched to an ad break where there was an announcement- TV3 AM proudly sponsered by Psychics Live...need I say more?


----------



## redstar (28 Aug 2007)

MOB said:


> the Christian ten commandments are, by and large, an encouragement to ethical behaviour.



Christian ten commandments ? I think followers of the Jewish faith might take issue with that !
Also, what do Buddhists need to encourage ethical behaviour in their societies ?

Are the Japanese followers of Shinto any less ethical than Christians or Jews ?


----------



## homeowner (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> Dawkins is a hack anyway. His grasp of philosophy is tenuous at best.


 
Eh?  Would you care to give some examples to back that statement up?  He has written extensively on the subject, made it his career mission to try to explain his points of view on the origins of life, the universe and everything, including religion and he is an evolutionary biologist.  Your statement would appear to be completely false.  But I await your evidence.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

The problem here is Dawkins' assumptions about proof. I mean, people don't believe in God _for no reason_, that would be silly. They can generally give reasons, sure, the reason may just be "it just feels right" or something non-rational (not the same as irrational) like that, but it's a reason none-the-less. 

What is Dawkins' definition of 'proof'? He's never particularly clear about this (probably because it would require him to actually do some philosophy). Does he mean deductive proof? No - he can't, since we believe in many things without deductive proof. Does he mean scientific evidence? Well, God is not a scientific entity, so looking for scientific evidence of God is a doomed exercise. It's simply not a reasonable request. 

Secondly, there is nothing in the philosophy of science that claims that "science is the only way to knowledge" or anything dumb like that. It is perfectly possible that the theist is justified in believing in God due to non-scientific and non-deductive methods. 
The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.


----------



## Remix (28 Aug 2007)

redstar said:


> As a minority shouting against irrationality, i'm not surprised he [Dawkins] is using 'in-your-face' tactics just to be heard. .


 
I wonder how he views this problem of minority. Most people do probably find his views somewhat repellant.

Dawkins frequently points out how close we are genetically to chimps - and hardly a day passes without some new scientific study showing how related we are.

Dawkins himself is very active in the efforts to extending moral and legal rights to chimpanzees and other apes.

As far as I know chimps get on with their lives without any religious activity  so I wonder if the great apes - with extended rights - could provide a boost to the numbers of atheists ? Though even with that I still think the numbers would be quite small.


----------



## polaris (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> Secondly, there is nothing in the philosophy of science that claims that "science is the only way to knowledge" or anything dumb like that. It is perfectly possible that the theist is justified in believing in God due to non-scientific and non-deductive methods.
> The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.


 

Science is a means to gaining knowledge about the workings of the Universe and everything in it. What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists.

If there is another "way to knowledge" as you call it, I would genuinely like to hear more about it.


----------



## polaris (28 Aug 2007)

Remix said:


> I wonder how he views this problem of minority. Most people do probably find his views somewhat repellant.


 
There's a hypothesis that the human brain is pre-disposed to religious belief so I'd guess it would follow that atheism would be in the minority and be repellant to the majority.

*[broken link removed]*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

> What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists.


 
If they look for scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity they'll never find it.



polaris said:


> If there is another "way to knowledge" as you call it, I would genuinely like to hear more about it.


 
Philosophy.

The scientific method can tell us nothing of morals, ethics, etc. Now I'm not about to get into a massive debate about Science versus Religion or Philosophy in general, but there is more to life than cold hard scientific facts, and I simply would not believe anyone who claimed they truly believed otherwise.


----------



## polaris (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> The scientific method can tell us nothing of morals, ethics, etc.


 

So you're basically saying that we need religious belief to promote good behaviour in a society. 

Good parenting skills, civic lessons etc would do as good a job.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

polaris said:


> So you're basically saying that we need religious belief to promote good behaviour in a society.


 
I really have no idea where you got that notion from.

We do need morals to tell us how to behave though, and they won't come from science. Saying that they'll come from good parenting doesn't make sense. Where do they _originate_ from?


----------



## Remix (28 Aug 2007)

polaris said:


> Ironically this thread was started to discuss a bishop's attack on the growing popularity of astrology etc.
> 
> If that attack wasn't being disrespectful to those who believe in this type of supernaturalism, then I don't know what is!


 

Richard Dawkins has also attacked astrology. So it looks like the Archbishop and Atheist agree on some things !

Dawkins attacks astrology as false and as having "sad human consequences".

Astrologers state that the chance coincidence and physical placement of planets and stars can have human consequences.

Dawkins disagrees and says they have it wrong: it's the chance coincidence and physical placement of electrons and atoms in our genes that have human consequences


----------



## Caveat (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> If they look for scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity they'll never find it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just wondering Shanegl, is there a particular school of thought in conventional philosophy that you would subscribe to on this issue?

e.g. Humanism?


----------



## polaris (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I really have no idea where you got that notion from.
> 
> We do need morals to tell us how to behave though, and they won't come from science. Saying that they'll come from good parenting doesn't make sense. Where do they _originate_ from?


 
I originally asked you about this "knowledge" that could reveal the existence of a supernatural entity. In your next post you ignored this and continued your with analysis of the "inadequacies" of the scientific method. 

*"The scientific method can tell us nothing of morals, ethics, etc."*

I agree with you here but disagree with your implication that religion is the only source of rules for morality/ethical behaviour. You seem to be waving this as a trump card against Science.

It is much more likely that the rules for morality/ethical behaviour are constructs of the human mind.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

> I originally asked you about this "knowledge" that could reveal the existence of a supernatural entity.


 
No, you only asked me for other sources of knowledge, I gave you one.



> I agree with you here but disagree with your implication that religion is the only source of rules for morality/ethical behaviour. You seem to be waving this as a trump card against Science.


 
This is the second time I have to tell you that I don't think that religion is the only source of morality.



> It is much more likely that the rules for morality/ethical behaviour are constructs of the human mind.


 
Indeed.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Just wondering Shanegl, is there a particular school of thought in conventional philosophy that you would subscribe to on this issue?
> 
> e.g. Humanism?


 

I would tend towards humanism personally. That doesn't mean I agree with the way Dawkins goes about things though.


----------



## Caveat (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I would tend towards humanism personally. That doesn't mean I agree with the way Dawkins goes about things though.


 
The British Humanist Association felt it appropriate to elect him their vice president though.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

I know.


----------



## polaris (28 Aug 2007)

Apologies, shanegl. I misread your post #102 and the confusion snowballed from thereon.


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

The joys of forums


----------



## Caveat (28 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I know.


 
So in your view is the BHA wrong to have Dawkins representing them?


----------



## shanegl (28 Aug 2007)

Based on _The God Delusion,_ definitely.


----------



## z109 (28 Aug 2007)

polaris said:


> Science is a means to gaining knowledge about the workings of the Universe and everything in it. What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists.



Um, no, not all of us are saying that.

The absence of faith (atheism) does not require a proof/disproof. For many atheists, just because they do not believe in any god does not mean they think that other people are wrong or stupid to believe in a particular god. In the same way that many people claim their spirituality as personal, those atheists have a personal disbelief system.



polaris said:


> It is much more likely that the rules for morality/ethical behaviour are constructs of the human mind.



Or indeed that society does it for individuals. Social mores are distinct from those of the individual. Hence personally liberal people supporting an illiberal society (the "some of my best friends are Jewish, but I voted for the Nazi party" case).


----------



## pat127 (29 Aug 2007)

yoganmahew said:


> The absence of faith (atheism) does not require a proof/disproof.




I wonder about that. A committed Agnostic (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) will tell you that believing that there isn't a Deity is every bit as irrational as believing there is. In the absence of proof, 'faith' is required to make the assertion on either side.



Thomas T Huxley who is credited with inventing the term defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 

 "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."


----------



## Caveat (29 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."


 
I wondered when this might be addressed.  My guess is that some 'atheists' on AAM are really agnostics when they think about it.

The (very) common misconception about agnostics is that they are 'fence sitters' rather than the considered, logical, non-absolutists that they _really_ are.


----------



## homeowner (29 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> The problem here is Dawkins' assumptions about proof.....
> What is Dawkins' definition of 'proof'? He's never particularly clear about this (probably because it would require him to actually do some philosophy).


 
He has been explicitly clear on what sort of proof he requires.  Have you read any of his books?  Tests that are repeatable and measurable is what he states.  



shanegl said:


> The idea that science is the only way to truth is a dogma. Blind faith.


Its the only measurable way.  Otherwise you have to believe everything people say is true just because they say it is true or have experienced it.  You have no way to differentiate unless you have tangible proof. i can tell you that extra-terrestrials have visited me in my house and if I dont offer you any proof by what you are saying it must be credible evidence that it is true because I believe it to be true.



			
				polaris said:
			
		

> What atheists are saying is that in the absence of conclusive evidence of a supernatural entity, they do not believe such an entity exists


That is the agnostic not the atheist view point.


----------



## z109 (29 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> I wonder about that. A committed Agnostic (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) will tell you that believing that there isn't a Deity is every bit as irrational as believing there is. In the absence of proof, 'faith' is required to make the assertion on either side.



Where would you then place not believing that there is one? (That is, I don't believe there isn't a god, I just don't believe that there is one - is this semantics or do the two propositions have different meanings?). Surely this is atheism and, as you are not professing to believe in something, it does not require proof? Until such time as you are disproved by evidence, it seems a rational position?

To take the aliens example again, if you don't believe they have visited earth, this surely can't be irrational compared with believing that they have when there is no proof. On the other hand, if I decide not to believe in gravity, falling off a cliff will do great things to prove otherwise to me!


----------



## pat127 (29 Aug 2007)

yoganmahew said:


> Where would you then place not believing that there is one? (That is, I don't believe there isn't a god, I just don't believe that there is one - is this semantics or do the two propositions have different meanings?). Surely this is atheism and, as you are not professing to believe in something, it does not require proof? Until such time as you are disproved by evidence, it seems a rational position?



Taking what Huxley said ("it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty"), there are 2 propositions, 1 that God exists, the other that he doesn't. The Agnostic's position is that when either is expressed as a certainty it requires to be proved to be acceptable. 

To say "I don't believe there isn't a God" could mean that you accept the possibility that there is one - in fact as 2 negatives make a positive you are actually saying that you do believe that! The second statement ("I [just] don't believe there is one") has only one, incontroversial meaning.

Stating it at its simplest, an Agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists. He/she holds that the only rational response to the unprovable question "is there a God?" is "I don't know". An Atheist on the other hand positively believes that no God (or Goddess for that matter - perish the thought!) exists. 




yoganmahew said:


> To take the aliens example again, if you don't believe they have visited earth, this surely can't be irrational compared with believing that they have when there is no proof


. 

To say you don't believe they have visited Earth is not the same as saying that you don't believe they exist, merely that they haven't dropped in yet. In that sense you are being just as irrational as those who say that Aliens have visited Earth because by implication that means they have to believe in their existence.



yoganmahew said:


> On the other hand, if I decide not to believe in gravity, falling off a cliff will do great things to prove otherwise to me!



Not necessarily. Your firm belief that gravity doesn't exist may well prevent you from concluding that it does simply because you find that you are falling. You may actually reach some other conclusion - provided that you don't reach the ground first.


----------



## Remix (29 Aug 2007)

The reason why many don't accept science as the only source of truth is that science is a construct as described by Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin:



> It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
> 
> We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism


 
This is very honest of Lewotin (himself an atheist).

So for scientists like himself the materialism comes first; the science follows. No matter what!

What we are often seeing is commited atheists employing science for their own ends and not neutral philosphers surveying the evidence and arriving at atheism.

This is why some of the great debates around these issues - despite their wonderful entertaintment value - can never really get started let alone resolved !


----------



## z109 (29 Aug 2007)

pat127 said:


> Taking what Huxley said ("it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty"), there are 2 propositions, 1 that God exists, the other that he doesn't. The Agnostic's position is that when either is expressed as a certainty it requires to be proved to be acceptable.


But I am not saying I am certain of an objective truth; subjective to me I don't believe he exists.

No, there are many propositions:
1. I believe god exists
2. I don't believe in god (atheist)
3. I believe there isn't a god (hard atheist!)
3. You can't prove that god exists, therefore he doesn't (Dawkins/agnostic)
4. You can't prove that god doesn't exist, therefore he does (agnostic!)



pat127 said:


> To say "I don't believe there isn't a God" could mean that you accept the possibility that there is one - in fact as 2 negatives make a positive you are actually saying that you do believe that! The second statement ("I [just] don't believe there is one") has only one, incontroversial meaning.


Sorry, I should have put that in quotes, it should have read: I don't believe "there isn't a god", I just don't believe in god. I give the existence of god (or not) no thought or angst. I do not try to convert anyone. My atheism is personal. It is not reliant on any outside agency or proof/disproof.


----------



## Remix (30 Aug 2007)

I realise some posts are at cross purposes here but I just wanted to suspend me daily grind for a moment to add another comment to my quote of Lewonsin above.

In it he outlines an aspect of the limits of science. I came across a similiar idea from C.S. Lewis regarding the use and limits of scientific language that I enjoyed.


Lewis describes the difference between ordinary language:

"It was very cold" 

and scientific language: 

"The temperature was -10 degrees celsius"

We can see the scientific language has a precision that we can quantify, test and verify. But on a human level it is limited - it doesn't portray quality or feeling.

Ordinary language might do a little better:

"Your ears will tingle" or "It will hurt just to breathe".

Then he elevates the language further by taking an example from Keats:

Ah, bitter chill it was! 
The owl, for all his feathers, was a-cold; 
The hare limped trembling through the frozen grass, 
And silent was the flock in wooly fold: 
Numb’d were the Beadsman’s fingers

This language cannot be quantified or tested but Lewis felt that it conveyed information that can be given in no other way. 

It communicates a quality of experience that renders the scientific description (-10 degrees celsius) almost primitive by comparison.

Lewis goes on to describe what to him was the ultimate in human linguistic achievment - the language of this faith - but I'll leave it at that.

(Ref:  C.S Lewis Essay "The Language of Religion")


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2007)

I am an agnostic. I don't like the way Dawkins delivers his message though I find myself veering toward the contemptuous when engaging in these sort of debates with those who "just believe" and have never questioned something that should have a profound influence on all aspects of their lives.
My take on religion is that the Egyptians, the Bronze Age Indians and the Mesopotamians all had belief systems that existed for thousands of years, in the Egyptians case virtually unaltered. These faiths were at least twice as old as Christianity and older than any monotheist religion by over a thousand years. They are all now utterly dead and the world has kept on turning.
This is not a debate about the source of ethics in the world but it is interesting to note that when Confucius and Buddha (both belief systems that do not require a belief in the divine) were formulating and preaching their teachings the civilisations they were born into were already a few thousand years old, stable, urban and relatively prosperous and were attempting to deal with how to make people "good" without the fear of a celestial sanction.


----------



## pat127 (31 Aug 2007)

yoganmahew said:


> But I am not saying I am certain of an objective truth; subjective to me I don't believe he exists.
> 
> No, there are many propositions:
> 1. I believe god exists
> ...



One of the difficulties with this debate is that each of the terms 'atheism', 'agnosticism' and 'christianity' indeed, can be used to cover a wide area of meaning or interpretation. There are for example Agnostic theists who are defined as believing that a deity probably exists and Agnostic atheists who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists. That's why I tried to take the broad meanings. 

I'd have to take issue with your last 2 statements however. Above all, borrowing Caveat's term, Agnostics are non-absolutists. The word 'therefore' is not part of their vocabulary (therefore!).


----------



## polaris (31 Aug 2007)

Remix said:


> What we are often seeing is commited atheists employing science for their own ends and not neutral philosphers surveying the evidence and arriving at atheism.


 

What evidence is out there that leads to the conclusion of theism?


----------



## pat127 (31 Aug 2007)

Remix said:


> I realise some posts are at cross purposes here but I just wanted to suspend me daily grind for a moment to add another comment to my quote of Lewonsin above.
> 
> In it he outlines an aspect of the limits of science. I came across a similiar idea from C.S. Lewis regarding the use and limits of scientific language that I enjoyed.
> 
> ...



I fail to see the relevance Remix. Scientific language has by definition to be precise. What both Poetry and Religion have in common is an appeal to the emotions. The abiding theme in Christianity (and perhaps in other religions) is 'love' and you cannot get more emotional than that.

While on the subject of choosing the type of language to suit the occasion, it's interesting to note that the title of this thread is not 'scientific' in that sense of being precise and neutral. A somewhat pejorative, even derisory expression, was deployed. That may well have been intended but it limits the ability to discuss the topic in a dispassionate, logical manner.


----------



## Remix (31 Aug 2007)

> I fail to see the relevance Remix. Scientific language has by definition to be precise.


 
The point I was trying to make is that there is often too much faith put in science even as scientific method and language are limited in what they can achieve and communicate.

Also it's useful to distinguish scientific language as a type so your eyebrows can raise when Dawkins et al deviate wildly from it - even as they posture as scientists.




> What both Poetry and Religion have in common is an appeal to the emotions. The abiding theme in Christianity (and perhaps in other religions) is 'love' and you cannot get more emotional than that.


 
Topic for another day! But emotion comes into it on all sides. There's also a lot of emotion - anger - tied into some sub-species of atheism. I don't specifically mean AAM but you don't have to look very hard to find it.



> While on the subject of choosing the type of language to suit the occasion, it's interesting to note that the title of this thread is not 'scientific' in that sense of being precise and neutral. A somewhat pejorative, even derisory expression, was deployed. That may well have been intended but it limits the ability to discuss the topic in a dispassionate, logical manner


 
It's normal in debates or the "culture wars", if you like, to see attempts to bias the language. This is a common persuasion technique.

Most times it's fair enough - almost funny in fact. Note the use of the term "believer" and the way it's used. Also note the use of good solid hard words like knowledge, reason, objectivity, fact versus dubious words like subjectivity, superstition, values etc. Classic stuff !  

But I agree sometimes it goes beyond attempts to persuade and comes across more as a kind of cheap pop-culture bigotry.


----------



## Purple (3 Sep 2007)

I don't think ClubMan was trying to be scientific or balanced when he wrote the title. The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system.
By the way Remix, Richard Lewontin reacted angrily when selective quotations of his observations on the limits of science were used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest he supported the concept of a deity.
He has written on the dangers of accepting existing theory as fact within a scientific context but only within that context. For example he said that evolution was a fact but there were sub-debates about the exact path that it has followed.
_Quote: 
"Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts & Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science." 

Lewontin, "Misquoted Scientists Respond," Creation/Evolution VI, Fall 1981, p. 35. _

I agree that Richard Dawkins can veer from the scientific to the rhetorical without letting his audience know but I agree with him that wonder and poetry can be experienced in abundance in the world around us and it does not require the suspension of our critical faculties to appreciate it.


----------



## MOB (4 Sep 2007)

"The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system."

At risk of repeating myself, it is not at all absurd.  The Catholic church is perfectly free to conduct itself in whatever way it wants provided it does not impose its views or rules on non-Catholics.  If you concede (as I presume you do) that people are perfectly free to participate in an organised religion, and that any religion is entitled to have its own rules, then there is nothing at all absurd about proponents of a particular religion telling their adherents that the rules forbid participation in certain other conflicting (non-scientific) beliefs.    And is it not perhaps a little unfair to suggest that Catholicism requires the rejection of science?


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> "The point of the thread is that it is absurd for one belief system that is based on faith alone and has no scientific basis what so ever (indeed requires the rejection of science) to criticise another equally groundless belief system."
> 
> At risk of repeating myself, it is not at all absurd.  The Catholic church is perfectly free to conduct itself in whatever way it wants provided it does not impose its views or rules on non-Catholics.  If you concede (as I presume you do) that people are perfectly free to participate in an organised religion, and that any religion is entitled to have its own rules, then there is nothing at all absurd about proponents of a particular religion telling their adherents that the rules forbid participation in certain other conflicting (non-scientific) beliefs.    And is it not perhaps a little unfair to suggest that Catholicism requires the rejection of science?



My point is that Sean Brady's comment that "People who put their trust in horoscopes, astrology and mediums lack trust in God and are "colluding with an illusion" " is absurd as both systems of belief are equally illogical. I have no problem with the rest of his comments, in fact I agree with much of the sentiment expressed.


----------



## z109 (4 Sep 2007)

Francis Fukuyama and the whole "end of history" nonsense.


----------



## Remix (4 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> By the way Remix, Richard Lewontin reacted angrily when selective quotations of his observations on the limits of science were used by the Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest he supported the concept of a deity.
> He has written on the dangers of accepting existing theory as fact within a scientific context but only within that context. For example he said that evolution was a fact but there were sub-debates about the exact path that it has followed.
> _Quote: _
> _"Lewontin himself, complaining about this exact same misquotation as presented in an issue of the Institute for Creation Research's Acts & Facts: "But the point of my article, 'Adaptation' in Scientific American, from which these snippets were lifted, was precisely that the 'perfection of organisms' is often illusory and that any attempt to describe organisms as perfectly adapted is destined for serious contradictions. Moreover, the appearance of careful and artful design was taken in the nineteenth century before Darwin as 'the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.' The past tense of my article ('It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment ... that was the chief evidence of Supreme Designer') has been conveniently dropped by creationist [Gary] Parker in his attempt to pass off this ancient doctrine as modern science." _
> ...


 
Purple - you appear to be confusing quotations.

The info above from your post is from a different debate. Note the date of your quote: 1981.

My quote is taken from Richard Lewontin's January 9, *1997* article, "Billions and Billions of Demons", which is a review of a Carl Sagan book.

For him to complain in 1981 about being misquoted on something he hadn't yet said and would eventually say in 1997 would be some accomplishment for someone who doesn't believe in miracles  

To my knowledge, Lewonsin has not attempted to backpeddle on the words I quoted from this article :



> It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.


----------



## polaris (4 Sep 2007)

*It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door*

This is merely a factual statement. Lewontin would have no reason to backpedal from it.

Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2007)

polaris said:


> This is merely a factual statement. Lewontin would have no reason to backpedal from it.
> 
> Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.


I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## Remix (4 Sep 2007)

polaris said:


> *It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door*
> 
> This is merely a factual statement. ..


 

I agree. Purple where were you going with that crazy post above regarding Jehovah's witness's and claims of misquotes etc.?



> Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.


 
Many scientists are religious. Science labs around the worlds are not completely occupied by Richard Dawkins copycats. (Although there are many of these around outside of the scientific community  )

Science and religion are obviously not incompatible for many people. 

The ill will that's being stirred up lately between science and theology is possibly a tactic on behalf of some of the more entrenched atheists in the scientific community.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> I agree. Purple where were you going with that crazy post above regarding Jehovah's witness's and claims of misquotes etc.?


Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.



Remix said:


> Science and religion are obviously not incompatible for many people.


 Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.



Remix said:


> The ill will that's being stirred up lately between science and theology is possibly a tactic on behalf of some of the more entrenched atheists in the scientific community.


 So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.


----------



## Remix (4 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.


 
My quote of Lewontin was factual in nature and was stated 16 years after the event you refer to. Your attempt to link my use of this quote with an alleged misuse by Jehovah's Witness's of a completely different quote is stretching it a bit.



> Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.


 
Perhaps...or perhaps they have a better understanding of the differences.

Science has nothing privileged to say about issues that matter most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live. Like everyone else, "the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will hold the very fibers of his life.' (Max Weber - Science as a Vocation ) And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer. 
- (Source Eric Cohen - The Ends of Science) 



> So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.


 

"There is another fundamentalism: the belief that Darwinism explains everything important about being human "

If you accept this...well that's your business. But if this is being hauled into the public square and touted as truth then no surprise if it is challenged. And long may the debate continue..


----------



## room305 (4 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.



I've often wondered about this. I'm actually typing this from a scientific conference which has representation from just about every major faith in the world. I've worked with people before who I would consider very religious and were keen observers of the various demands of their faith - be it fasting, praying, not drinking alcohol etc. Yet it in no way impacted upon their scientific ability. So it's definitely not the case that they just adopted a fairly lassiez faire attitude to the whole subject and didn't think about it much. These were people for whom religion meant a great deal. I've never understood how they managed to square that with working in this field.

That said, I've never been brave enough to ask either.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> Science has nothing privileged to say about issues that matter most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live.


 I agree completely but that’s nothing to do with religion. A humanistic moral code need not be informed by science at all. 



Remix said:


> Like everyone else, "the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will hold the very fibers of his life.' (Max Weber - Science as a Vocation ) And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer.
> - (Source Eric Cohen - The Ends of Science)


 The same point, I still agree and it still has nothing to do with religion. “gods” and “demons” in this context could easily be metaphorical. My understanding of the above quote is that science does not teach a moral code, I agree with this. However belief in a god is not in any way required in order to develop a moral code (or whatever phrase you wish to use to describe it). 



Remix said:


> "There is another fundamentalism: the belief that Darwinism explains everything important about being human "


 I have never suggested that it does, indeed I have never heard anyone else on AAM suggest it. I don’t know where you got the idea that I would agree with this. Anyway, this is all off topic.




Remix said:


> If you accept this...well that's your business. But if this is being hauled into the public square and touted as truth then no surprise if it is challenged. And long may the debate continue..


 Evolution is a fact, the exact cause and effect and path of evolution is unclear and is proposed by many theories. They are sideshows within the main event. 
The teachings of the Catholic Church over the years on the age of the world, the origin of man, the way in which we reproduce, etc, etc have all been shown to be utterly wrong. This is also a fact. 
Belief in the events described in the Old and New Testament do not stand up to logical scrutiny and so require the suspension of reason and any requirement for empirical proof.  

Given that of the above statements are true it is deeply hypocritical of the Catholic Church to criticise any other religion or belief system based on the supernatural. 
Your comment above is just muddying the water and distract from the core point.


----------



## Remix (4 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> I've often wondered about this. I'm actually typing this from a scientific conference which has representation from just about every major faith in the world. I've worked with people before who I would consider very religious and were keen observers of the various demands of their faith - be it fasting, praying, not drinking alcohol etc. Yet it in no way impacted upon their scientific ability. So it's definitely not the case that they just adopted a fairly lassiez faire attitude to the whole subject and didn't think about it much. These were people for whom religion meant a great deal. I've never understand how they could square that with working in this field.
> 
> That said, I've never been brave enough to ask either.


 
A good book is "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.

This guy is an honoured scientist and was the leader of the Human Genome Project.

It's the story of how he - doing research at the very forefront of science - came to believe in God. Early in his career he concluded that religion had no "foundational truth". This was following interactions with "one or two aggressive atheists"  

An agnostic or atheist most of his life and from a non-religious family he writes how he was struck by many aspects of our world and the universe that made it impossible for him to continue to deny a creator.

It's very well written and thought out - and with all the rhetoric flying about nowadays regarding faith and science, his I think is a welcome voice of reason.


----------



## room305 (4 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> A good book is "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.



I shall definitely have to check it out. I will say as an avowed atheist I have no problem with the concept of deism - a belief in the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural creator of the universe. It's not implausible as Thomas Hobbes has often wrote.



> The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.



However I reject absolutely any ideology that posits that this being takes an active interest in the affairs of man, intervening in our affairs, revealing himself through scripture, caring what particular incantonation of his names is used, what our sexual proclivities are etc.

It's huge leap from looking at the wonders of the universe and saying "there must be a God" to saying "I better not eat fish this Friday or God will be angry and will deny me eternal life" ...


----------



## Remix (5 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> I shall definitely have to check it out. I will say as an avowed atheist I have no problem with the concept of deism - a belief in the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural creator of the universe. It's not implausible as Thomas Hobbes has often wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

That's fine - that's your right and you can relax about that. As someone pointed our earlier - the church proposes not imposes. 

(For example, Larry Craig in the news for his public toilet activities was not hauled off to jail and charged by a group of vatican enforcers. He was arrested following ongoing complaints by members of the public who planned to use the toilet for its "intended purpose" but found themselves being solicited or harassed.)


Another point I've heard that springs to mind is that atheists invest a lot of time attacking a god that hardly anyone believes in.


----------



## polaris (5 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> That's fine - that's your right and you can relax about that. As someone pointed our earlier - the church proposes not imposes.



You're giving the impression that militant atheism is browbeating/bullying a meek and gentle religious community who just want to be left alone to worship their respective Gods in private.  

While it has thankfully declined in Ireland in recent years, religions still impose a rigid control on the lifestyle/freedoms of millions wordwide. One or two uncompromising atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have appeared in recent years and they are accused of being unreasonable, offensive and of sowing discord!!


----------



## Remix (5 Sep 2007)

polaris said:


> You're giving the impression that militant atheism is browbeating/bullying a meek and gentle religious community who just want to be left alone to worship their respective Gods in private.
> 
> While it has thankfully declined in Ireland in recent years, religions still impose a rigid control on the lifestyle/freedoms of millions wordwide. One or two uncompromising atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have appeared in recent years and they are accused of being unreasonable, offensive and of sowing discord!!


 
In Catholicism, the method of freedom has been completely embraced:
"The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." - That came from the vatican itself!
Pretty much sums up all of modern christianity I would think. And it ain't going away anytime soon.

As John Neuhaus has put it:
"Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market because it is now evident that homo religiosus, man in search of transcendent meaning, is irrepressible"

Maybe this is why Dawkins , Hitchens etc are so p***ed off and angry. Religion was supposed to gradually wither away, darn it!, and we should be paying more attention to them, the poor things:

Christopher Hitchens
picks up the rice in a church
where a wedding has been.
Lives in a dream . . .

All the lonely doubters,
where do they all come from?
All the lonely doubters,
where do they all belong?

(song shamelessly pinched from the web  )


----------



## Gordanus (5 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> In Catholicism, the method of freedom has been completely embraced:
> "The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." - That came from the vatican itself!



So did papal infallibility.


----------



## Berlin (5 Sep 2007)

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
He sat up all night wondering if there really is a dog.


----------



## MOB (6 Sep 2007)

"The teachings of the Catholic Church over the years on the age of the world, the origin of man, the way in which we reproduce, etc, etc have all been shown to be utterly wrong. This is also a fact."

Hi Purple.   A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong. 

It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.   

It is not much longer since our doctors learned that dirt in wounds causes infection.  

It is less than 30 years since children were taken away from their parents on the strength of findings of abuse from scientists spouting the accepted theories of the day, now wholly discredited.

You can't expect any large (at times monolithic) power structure to be on the leading edge of change.   It is only normal for the Catholic Church to have been a voice of conservatism at various times over the years.  Many in the Church today undoubtedly wish that this were not so.  

A lot of what we now know to be nasty, abusive or just daft happened when the Church was very powerful in our society.  A lot of our greatest social and scientific advances also happened while the Church was very powerful.   We need to be rigourous about ascribing cause and effect.


----------



## pat127 (6 Sep 2007)

Berlin said:


> Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
> He sat up all night wondering if there really is a dog.




Foow! Foow!


----------



## redstar (6 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> "A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.
> 
> It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.
> 
> ...



No arguing with that.  All those things you mention were indeed overthrown - by advancement in scientific methods and technologies, not any God-given revelations. It is the nature of scientific method, by investigation and analysis of evidence, to change previous teachings or findings.
By comparison, not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE exists for the revealed 'truths' about mankinds origins, or indeed the origin of the universe IN SPITE of any evidence found by scientific investigation.


----------



## MOB (6 Sep 2007)

Hi redstar;  I think when you refer to 'evidence' you might mean 'proof'.   There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of god.  That is not really the point:  it is intrinsic to any faith-based religion that its followers take some things on faith; scientific 'proof' is not the objective; faith is. 

In an era of rational scepticism, many people find this silly and even objectionable.  But we currently live in a society which - like most western democracies - regards it as important that people be free to adopt and follow religious beliefs without persecution or ridicule for doing so.  So even if we don't believe, the current rules of our society do require that we tolerate.


----------



## polaris (6 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of god.


 
To me, evidence would be tell-tale signs or clues which *might* suggest the existence of a god. I would genuinely be interested if you could tell us about with this obvious evidence. 

Do you believe that this evidence is to be found in the current gaps in scientific knowledge or in the irrepressibility of religious belief in the face of the onslaught of rationality?


----------



## MOB (6 Sep 2007)

"To me, evidence would be tell-tale signs or clues which might suggest the existence of a god. I would genuinely be interested if you could tell us about with this obvious evidence. "

Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.   

You can google 'evidence for god's existence' and you will get any amount of reading.   Mind you, much of the so-called evidence which this will produce is nothing of the sort.  For example, many arguments are published along the lines that if earth was a tiny bit bigger, a tiny bit further from the sun, lacking the slight wobble which gives us the seasons, lacking a particular atmosphere etc etc.. then life would not exist, and that the fortuitous confluence of so many individual elements betrays the presence of a God behind it all.  This patently lacks logic.


----------



## Sherman (6 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.


 
No it isn't, no more than the millions of people who believe in aliens is evidence of the existence of aliens. Or the fact that Elvis lives. These facts are merely evidence that there are a lot of deluded people around.


----------



## MOB (6 Sep 2007)

This is getting silly.

 There is an element of mad hatter's tea party about this discussion - where words mean what we say they mean.  

1.  Let me say it again: Evidence is not the same as proof. 

2.   I doubt that there are millions of people who 'believe in aliens'; but if there were, this would indeed constitute evidence in favour of the existence of aliens. Not proof; just evidence (and not very persuasive evidence at that.)   And this is a poor example to give by way of refuting my point anyway; many reputable scientist believe in aliens (not alien visitation, which I suspect is what was intended)- and point to the statistical probabilities as 'proof' .

3.  And if there are millions of people who believe that Elvis lives, then that is evidence too: just evidence that happens to be contradicted by other, better, more persuasive evidence.


----------



## polaris (6 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> "
> Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.


 

That could used as evidence for the existence of a God or might also be evidence of a predisposition to religious belief in the human brain.

Obviously I think the latter is much more probable 

As you point out the "fine-tuned universe" arguments are essential meaningless.


----------



## Berlin (6 Sep 2007)

Evidence or Proof?
God or Celestial Teapot?
Semantic or Pedantic?


----------



## Remix (6 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> In an era of rational scepticism, many people find this silly and even objectionable. But we currently live in a society which - like most western democracies - regards it as important that people be free to adopt and follow religious beliefs without persecution or ridicule for doing so. So even if we don't believe, the current rules of our society do require that we tolerate.


 

I'm not so sure about this characterisation.

The surge in atheism books over past few years followed the surge in of God/Angels/spirituality books over the previous few years. A lot of the current brouhaha could well be part of the current publishing marketing cycle. They do tend to copy each other and market to transcient reading fashions.

It's possibly even linked to 911 when radical Islam gave opponents of religion a weapon to attack all religion.

However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.

Even just looking at the titles/subtitles of these books - 

God Delusion
God Poisons everything
God is not Great
etc.

One is struck by a strange sense of defensiveness about them. Desperation maybe? but certainly not victory.


----------



## room305 (7 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> 2.   I doubt that there are millions of people who 'believe in aliens'; but if there were, this would indeed constitute evidence in favour of the existence of aliens. Not proof; just evidence (and not very persuasive evidence at that.)   And this is a poor example to give by way of refuting my point anyway; many reputable scientist believe in aliens (not alien visitation, which I suspect is what was intended)- and point to the statistical probabilities as 'proof' .



Gallup conducted surveys in the US asking people "do you believe extraterrestrials have visited the Earth?" - only 51% said no, indicating that a possible 150 million or so people living in America believe aliens have visited the Earth at some stage. One quarter of Americans believe that astrology has some basis in fact, and 37% of Americans believe that houses can be "haunted". Similar results have been obtained for polls in Canada and Britain. Only 40% of Americans believe in evolution as fact (in most developed nations this is much higher at 80% or so), and a staggering 20% believe that it is the sun that rotates around the Earth and not the other way round.

This is before we consider the astoundingly high number of people who believe that NASA faked the moon landings and that George Bush had a hand in organising the 9/11 tragedy. I personally know people who tell me they believe in the concept of a guardian angel and yet also believe this to be tied to their own Catholic-faith despite it being a pagan belief.

Popular delusion is just that, popular delusion. It is evidence of nothing.


----------



## Remix (7 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> indicating that a possible 150 million or so people living in America believe aliens have visited the Earth at some stage.


 

Be interesting if the link between this and science could ever be explored. Copernican Principle, the idea that we do not have a special position in the universe might have been the first step.

Darwinists also led people to believe that life routinely develops under favorable conditions. 

In our own lifetimes, scientists may also be fueling it:
"I think that mankind is on the threshold of entering a larger, cosmic community," 
Astronomer Robert Jastrow

"I used to rather enjoy thinking that the early civilizations would have set up an intercommunicating system Maybe laser beams or something full of information about all the other civilizations in the past history of the galaxy, and that this is all circulating . . . from star to star around the galaxy, and all we have to do is tap into it." 
Astronomer Eric Carlson 

Similiar pronouncments even had one christian write: 

Who can tell what other cradle,
High above the Milky Way,
Still may rock the King of Heaven
On another Christmas Day?
 

And who could forget Carl Sagan with his billions and billions of stars and millions of habitable planets within our own galaxy.

And yet after nearly 50 years of searching for intelligence in radio signals from space, the universe remains silent and the human race would seem not as insignificant as Stephen Hawking et al would have us believe.


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> I'm not so sure about this characterisation.


I think it’s an excellent point.



Remix said:


> It's possibly even linked to 911 when radical Islam gave opponents of religion a weapon to attack all religion.


 I think that’s a bit of a stretch.



Remix said:


> However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.


 The tolerance of multiple faiths can only happen in a country that is secular in structure. Religion in general and Catholicism in particular, is fundamentally undemocratic (even though Islam has traditionally been very egalitarian within it’s male dominated confines). 
This does not mean that those who rule and run the country must or should be agnostic or atheist.



Remix said:


> One is struck by a strange sense of defensiveness about them. Desperation maybe? but certainly not victory.


 I don’t understand where you are going with this sort of emotive triumphalist rhetoric. This is not a battle or a war, it is a discussion, nothing more. 

By the way quoting John Neuhaus, a right wing Catholic priest and the chaplain to the neo-con movement in the USA (George W just cdalls him “Father John”), hardly adds balance to your arguments.


----------



## pat127 (7 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> Be interesting if the link between this and science could ever be explored. Copernican Principle, the idea that we do not have a special position in the universe might have been the first step.



As a committed 'don't know-er' (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) I'm following this thread with very close attention and find it very interesting.  

In my opinion the presence or absence of so-called 'aliens' is irrelevant to this debate other than attempting to use the belief in such as an example.

If there be a Divine Creator he/she/it could have chosen to populate the Universe with ourselves only, although God only knows why(!), or created other species, similar to or unimaginably different to ourselves.  That we haven't heard from them is of no relevance either. It signifies nothing. 

I'm in fact of that school of thought which proposes that the existence of Man is evidence against the existence of God (MOB's point about the precise use of language is noted). What supposedely omnipotent Being could have made a mistake of such magnitude and created a supposedly intelligent species which is determined to bring about its own, premature destruction and which is doomed to extinction anyway in the relatively near future (in cosmic terms) when Earth is swallowed up by a dying Sun? The Being then subjected itself to an agonising and awful death to compensate for the supposed 'crimes' it's creation had committed. [Please excuse me if I sound cynical. It's undoubtedly due to the harsh treatment I experienced from the 'Christian' Brothers in my young days!].


----------



## Remix (7 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> This is not a battle or a war, it is a discussion, nothing more.


 
With your tone and tactics you almost had me fooled


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> And yet after nearly 50 years of searching for intelligence in radio signals from space, the universe remains silent and the human race would seem not as insignificant as Stephen Hawkings et al would have us believe.



I find it funny that logic is used by religion to discount the possibility of life existing on other planets.

Those who use the lack of success of the SETI project to support their argument that we are alone in the universe (as the Catholic Church teaches) fail utterly to comprehend the size of the universe. Our galaxy is 100’000 light years across (or if the sun was 16.5cm in diameter the Galaxy would be 112 million Km across. 
If you plot distance on one axis of a graph you have to plot time on the other axis. This is a much bigger factor. Imagine the axis is a few Km long and a million years is 1 cm. 
Now imagine intelligent life to develops on a planet close to us, they develop radio communications and the signal from those communications are sent into space.
Even if that world sends signals for a million years we have to be able to pick them up as they pass us. They could have passed us a billion years ago or could do so a billion years in the future. 

I accept that it is possible, indeed probably that there is/was or will be life on other planets. I also think that it is incredibly improbable that we will ever have any contact with it.


----------



## Remix (7 Sep 2007)

It's often assumed that "contact" would be bad news for the Church but if it ever did happen that would really depend on what the aliens tell us about God.

Lots of pure speculation and leaps of faith in this whole area of ETI of course.

But what if they believe in a creator - and they could even answer some of the mysteries around that faith. What a time that would be!



> It's undoubtedly due to the harsh treatment I experienced from the 'Christian' Brothers in my young days


 
Been there! I find this very sad that some corrupt individuals have managed to deprive many people of something so important. It sometimes seems to me that Ireland resembles more the liberated lost than a society of rational skeptics. But heck it's Friday - I'm cheered up already !


----------



## Remix (7 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.
> 
> It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.
> 
> ...


 

The same thing occured to me and I liked the examples. I think there are many other good ones though.

I find the subject of great scientific blunders to be quite interesting. I've even thought of pulling together examples into a small book. (perhaps it's been written already!)

As you mentioned, the subject has its tragic side but it can also have comical elements - especially when you have some pompous prognosticators declaring something to be fact that later turns out to be quite a bit less than that!

There would also be a chapter related to that great bewhiskered dreamer - Charles Darwin. Not all the concepts of evolution have made it down to our time. Some of the notions have turned out to be, well, frankly, full of cr*p.


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> The same thing occured to me and I liked the examples. I think there are many other good ones though.


 Indeed there are and further scientific research based on reason and empirical evidence has shown them to be false, incomplete or inaccurate. This is one of the great strengths of science. Religion on the other hand requires that it's version of events is never questioned.



Remix said:


> There would also be a chapter related to that great bewhiskered dreamer - Charles Darwin. Not all the concepts of evolution have made it down to our time. Some of the notions have turned out to be, well, frankly, full of cr*p.


 While you are correct that some of what he wrote has been shown to be incorrect the basic concept has been shown to be correct and the examination of his theories and the subsequent work that has been carried out by other scientists has given us a greater understanding of where we come from. 
The Catholic church rejects such science, this pope rowing back on the small concessions to enlightenment made by JP the second. 
Tell me Remix, do you accept the Catholic Church's teachings on where we came from or do you accept that Darwin was closer to the mark?


----------



## MOB (7 Sep 2007)

The theory of evolution remains one of the great pieces of human thought of all time - mistakes in specific examples notwithstanding.

The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers.  Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.  

I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.


----------



## MOB (7 Sep 2007)

The theory of evolution remains one of the great pieces of human thought of all time - mistakes in specific examples notwithstanding.

The point I wanted to make with these examples was not that we should mistrust rationalism, or turn away from using scientific methods, but that we should never presume that - through these methods - we definitely have the right answers.  Science does not demand faith, and we should not give it.  

I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the enemy of science; I see no reason why science should make itself the enemy of the Church.


----------



## Remix (7 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> Tell me Remix, do you accept the Catholic Church's teachings on where we came from or do you accept that Darwin was closer to the mark?


 
That appears to be a false choice to me?

But church teaching appears reasonable. At least if my understanding of what that teaching is is correct.

Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed. I Agree with this.

There are obvious difficulties with attempts to entangle atheistic philosophy in the matter.

So they appear not to have an issue with the science but issues with the atheism. And there should be no surprise in the latter 

By the way, if your prime interest is simply religion bashing well that's one thing. But if do have questions in good faith then there are, of course, 
better resources on the web then me where you can pose them.


----------



## room305 (8 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.
> 
> Even just looking at the titles/subtitles of these books -
> 
> ...



I find this posturing a little incredulous. Are you telling me that if there was several books on Catholicism in the best-seller list (God is not a delusion, God is great, God doesn't poison anything) you would accept me citing this as proof of the imminent demise of Catholicism on the basis that the titles sounded defensive? 

Despite an inherent bias in the way the religious question is phrased in the census, you'll find that the greatest bull market in the last decade has been in those declining to subscribe to any faith.

The only way all religions can remain in a bull market is if, as Purple has pointed out, we have a secular society.


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2007)

Remix said:


> But church teaching appears reasonable. At least if my understanding of what that teaching is is correct.
> Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed. I Agree with this.


 I accept this is the case but it’s just a cop-out. My understanding is that the Catholic Church has never stated that the creation story in the book of Genesis is not correct. No priest I have ever talked to has ever seen it as other than a metaphor but I see this as another example of where the Church ignores its own past teachings when they have been shown to be conclusively untrue. 




Remix said:


> There are obvious difficulties with attempts to entangle atheistic philosophy in the matter.
> 
> So they appear not to have an issue with the science but issues with the atheism. And there should be no surprise in the latter


 God cannot be part of the equation in any scientific formula. This is not about any atheistic philosophy, it’s about offering  something that cannot be quantified or understood (i.e. God) as the answer to a scientific question. The two are utterly incompatible.  



Remix said:


> By the way, if your prime interest is simply religion bashing well that's one thing. But if do have questions in good faith then there are, of course,
> better resources on the web then me where you can pose them.


 I am not bashing religion, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who use religion to plug the gaps in science but at the same time refuse to apply scientific analysis to religion.
I am also aware that there are better places to get hard info on this but this discussion is fun and it’s interesting to debate with will informed people you disagree with.


----------



## Remix (9 Sep 2007)

"Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed"

I think it's the right approach as it allows a Christian the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads but at no point does it impose any kind of scientific orthodoxy. Science by it's very nature is tentative.

As Chesterton said:
“The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.” 

Referring to your comments on creation. Not very long ago the prevailing scientific theory on the universe was that it was perpetual and had no beginning. Just about every world religion held that the universe had a beginning but science took the opposing view - with considerable scientific reasoning on their side.

The term 'big bang' was coined derisively to ridicule the notion that the universe had a beginning.

As evidence for the big bang mounted, many people including many scientists, thought that it had theological implications that they did not like. Some thought it posed a threat to the very foundations of science. 
The passage of time since then lessens the utter shock it was for many scientists to realise the universe had a time "t=0". (Actually t=0 still boggles the scientific mind!)

My point is that it would have been folly for the Church to reject the concept of creation and impose the prevailing and erroneous view of science at that time. Things turned out to be somewhat more complex and mysterious.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." 
--Hamlet


----------

