April 24, 2004
For instance, contrary to what this guy seems to think, I’m not even remotely interested in avoiding “offending the right”. Quite the contrary, I’m entirely opposed to the kind of hand-wringing calls for cultural and political “civility” that always seem to presuppose that if the rest of us were just nicer to the wingers and fundamentalists, they’d be nice to us right back. No they wouldn’t. We’re clear on that.
My observations were about dysfunctional interactions between secular and religious people along the left end of the political spectrum. (For the sake of this discussion we will park the many libertarians we love and appreciate over here as well—simple-minded, unitary, and flawed, flawed, flawed! though such a model is.) I have never meant to suggest that (for instance) Air America shouldn’t broadcast snarky comments about religion, or that, should they cease doing so, right-wingers would suddenly start listening to Air America and agreeing with Jeanne Garofalo. Nor am I even remotely, by any stretch of the imagination, interested in living in a culture that doesn’t contain wild works of brilliant anti-religious sentiment like The Life of Brian or the monologues of Lenny Bruce.
My own views about the metaphysical and ontological claims of “religion,” and specifically of the denomination in which I was intermittently raised, are a vexed subject I’m not going to get into, partly because I am vexed by these issues and feel distinctly unequal to to the task of writing about them. I mention this because a certain number of readers seem to have jumped to distinctly mistaken conclusions about what I think in this regard. I’m much surer in my opinions about the recent public and political behavior of that particular denomination’s institutional hierarchy. I think the behavior in question sucks. I think many of those folks are in serious moral and ethical trouble, and should they happen to ask my opinion, I would be happy to provide them with a Things To Do list on which several Action Items would be ranked more highly than lecturing presidential candidates, campaigning against civil rights for gay people, and terrorizing pregnant women.
On another point, when I set out to talk about the way that liberal-slash-progressive people sometimes drive away religious people who would otherwise be their political allies, I should have acknowledged that nominal “Christianity” does indeed dominate mainstream American culture, so much so that non-Christians often feel pretty beaten down by it. In fact, hard though it may seem for some folks to believe, the kinds of Christians I was thinking about tend to themselves feel alienated from the increasingly right-wing tenor of much modern American “Christian” culture. At any rate, I really, really never wanted to cast religious liberals as a class of victims with a claim to some kind of open-ended guilt trip. Obviously, tolerance has to run both ways.
Really, I just think people ought to be more or less decent to one another, or failing that, entertaining about it. I am by temperament a promoter of coalitions and alliances, and in that persona I wince when I see potential allies grinding their heels into one another’s toes. I am also a professional aesthete, and in that capacity I love great flights of anticlerical brilliance while at the same time I wince at the kind of dreary “village atheist” who writes off Dorothy Day and Martin Buber as suckers who weren’t smart like us clever wised-up moderns. But I think this guy pretty much nailed that point. And now I’ve said everything I wanted to say, so I’m going to stop. [09:52 PM]
(I know, I know I said, and I do have stuff I need to finish, but - the cat came back...)
Patrick, don't stop talking (unless you're tired and all of course) - this *isn't* easy stuff and and discourse is never tidy in real life. It's harrowing when you delve into it seriously, and for us Catholic toads the harrow has been particularly heavy at late. One reason I recommitted two-three years ago was *because* of the scandals - it seemed important to me to deal with my doubts and agnosticism so that I could be one criticizing *from within*, a loyal opposition, where there seemed a dearth of same - not because outsiders didn't have valid grounds to criticize the coverups, but because it seemed that I might have more leverage from within. Silly hope, I know, but still - technology has changed the world, and when over 120 people have read my Catechism-sourced explanation of why the bishops are being theologically unsound in their defenses of the coverups and moving policies, it's got to have had some effect.
fwiw *I* think you're doing a good job raising questions and examining problems. And by the by, did anyone notice that Nicholas Kristof said *exactly* the same thing today in the NYT? He is often saying things along this line, being scrupulously fair even to those rather aggressive evangelicals that we more ecumenical sorts would prefer to distance ourselves from, in honour of the good works that they do - but I don't know that he's ever been this explicit about stating both the need for respect, the problem of generalized dissing, and the honest objections he has that nonetheless do not prevent him from giving Christianity its due.
More to think about: fact is, it's not just Liberal Christians/Conservative Christians/Liberal Secularists - the spectrum is way wider and more messy and a huge chunk of the population should be classed as Egotists, alignment Cultural, which is to say people who don't think about much except what's on tv tonight and go to church or have a bar Mitzvah because, well, it's traditional, and could be drawn either way - have consciences awakened, or be lulled to support those who claim to be looking out for them.
Those folks will be harmed and offput by Maron's ilk.
Others who will be, are people like me as I was - someone culturally aligned Conservative, but in all points rationally held and examined, a Liberal, but in denial and unaware that there was a place for me as a believer legitimately in the latter alignment, and offput by ignorant and reflexive sneers - I know some here don't like it for being too weak, but NPR was a major factor in my "outing" as liberal, because I had been told it had an anti-Catholic, anti-religious bias by default, being liberal media - and yet, as I listened to the coverage of the scandals locally, the rigor and dispassionate courtesy of the reporting by comparison to other media, made me start to question the blanket assertions of secular bias and to accept that not all criticism was necessarily a mark of bigotry. (Ditto the recent coverage of the southern governor whose failed effort to raise taxes to raise services was inspired by his Gospel reading: admiring and respectful, at least locally, and presented in counterpoint to the judge with the rock.)
--One way to think of it, for those who still have a hard time understanding how we believers feel being indiscriminately* dissed is the way you might feel hearing someone mock all those foolish scifi fans who watch Star Trek all the time and are out of touch with reality &c &c...
*indiscriminately being the operative word: no one who has followed the "heresy" sub-threads can possibly imagine that either Teresa or Patrick don't have a sense of humour about religion, in fact the sense of humour that only those within a group can ever have; I'm just impressed that there are so many people who can make *and* get obscure jokes about obscure heresies in this community, the sort of jokes I'd only expect to hear in a grad school theo program ordinarily. Neil Gaiman quotes from GK Chesterton for very good reasons...
It isn't about making people stop talking and forcing an unmeant politesse - I personally find nothing more loathesome than the Xtians who say, essentially, "yes, I think you're damned for being X, but I won't mention it because it's rude (ie, I don't want to deal with the fallout)" - but about raising consciousness and the level of discourse, and a mindful courtesy that used to be the ideal that all sides held up, conservative and liberal alike, however honoured in the breach. Let us leave mindless mockery to the Coulters and Limbaughs, and keep to target-specific, merited mockery with satiric corrective intent.
"I’m entirely opposed to the kind of hand-wringing calls for cultural and political “civility” that always seem to presuppose that if the rest of us were just nicer to the wingers and fundamentalists, they’d be nice to us right back. No they wouldn’t. We’re clear on that."
Hmmmm...I think you're right on this one...but it reminded me a lot of the response I got to a recent post on anti-American sentiment I wrote lately, which actually got a lot of reaction from my Canadian friends...they argued pretty much along the same lines, that people shouldn't bother to be non-judgmental about Americans, when that's what Americans are with the rest of the world.
Needless to say, I disagree with them profoundly. I don't expect one single person to treat me nicely because I refuse to judge Americans as a people. I agree with you a lot in saying that if we are nice to those who disagree with us, they won't be nicer. So I guess this is just to say that I wouldn't make any claim to political civility based on the consequences of such an action, but on the principle itself ;)
Just a little comment about this side issue you brought up. I think you are pretty much right on concerning the religious issue.
The everythingsruined link is very good and made me pause.
I guess much of the time I fall into the intolerant athiest class. There is a part of my brain that has a hard time considering a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim or Shinto as a rational human being. It is true that the outcome or intent is what's important not how one got there so my intolerance deprives me of many allies.
I just think people ought to be more or less decent to one another, or failing that, entertaining about it. I am by temperament a promoter of coalitions and alliances, and in that persona I wince when I see potential allies grinding their heels into one another’s toes.
Amen! (So to speak.)
Thank you for the link back; I went through and read a lot of stuff. (Because I should be writing, of course, heh.)
There are times I wish I had some sort of place I could look through and see what mainstream consensual reality looks like; I've never known, and it would be awfully useful at times like these. Because I really don't know how widespread this perspective is, this notion that the left is anti-religion.
To the extent it exists, I think it's a big bloody problem. I just can't judge the extent from here.
I know that a large part of where I have very little give in my political positions comes down to a refusal to support people who are opposed to who I am. (Like my position that I won't vote for anyone who thinks that my marriage needs to be defended from people like me.) Who I am is, among other things, religious.
As I said, I don't know how widespread this anti-religious presumption is; I see other commenters are far more familiar with its effects than I am.
I think there's another side to it, and it may be one that's more palatable to those people who are crying "pandering".
The vast majority of arguments of opposition to the concept of religion that I have seen are, well, dumb. They mistake the practices or beliefs of small groups for the beliefs of the majority; they mistake tendencies in religions that they're familiar with for intrinsic properties of religion as a whole.
I'm a minority of a minority, religion-wise; this puts me in the interesting position of rarely seeing a condemnation of "religion" that actually has any relationship with my religious beliefs at all. (And have the occasional dubious pleasure of seeing people cite my gods as notions too ludicrous to be believed in.)
I just can't take people who say those sorts of things seriously. If their positions are so ill-researched that they think that all religions are evangelising, that religion is the same as belief in an omniscient, omnipotent creator, that religion is intrinsically bound up with fear of hell, that religion and science are incompatible, or any of the other things that I see coming down the pike every so often -- well, if someone's arguing like that, I know they're talking ballocks. Am I supposed to trust what they say on some other subject?
Blowing one's credibility to make cheap shots that miss is not a productive strategy.
Please allow me to type a few words in defense of the anticlerical commenters at Political Animal/Kevin Drum and Eschaton/Atrios. The comment sections on both blogs are agnostic commons, a rare forum in an America which is generally not comfortably secular. Some contributors unbutton themselves thereabouts in ways they might not be able to do at home, in real life.
None among us fail to revere Dr. King or ignore the contributions of people of faith in our common causes. Few of us remind ourselves that for every apostle of desegregation or abolition of slavery there was an apologist claiming doctrinal support for whatever practice was then current.
Activists do tend to be drawn disproportionately from those most moved by religion. (King, Gandhi). Unfortunately, you still have to ask "Which side are you on?"
I don't think The Life of Brian is anti-religious. It makes fun of the New Testament, but making fun of something is not in itself being against it. The movie's final message is somewhat bleak, yes, but it is never actually biting against religion, unless one counts as being "anti-religion" being against silly bigotry and the determined refusal to think with one's own head. I think the most one can say is that it's somewhat wistfully agnostic. It never actually addresses the problem of there being a divine entity.
While on a base level I know that insults and incivillity can be pretty funny, for many of us--I'm thinking of Jews and Christians specifically--that kind of behavior is wrong. Not because it will make the Right be nice to us. Not because it will elevate the level of political discourse. But because it is immoral to be mean to other people. Jesus didn't say it was OK to call your brother a fool as long as you were witty about it.
And by the by, did anyone notice that Nicholas Kristof said *exactly* the same thing today in the NYT?
Molly Ivins has been saying the same thing for years.
"Please allow me to type a few words in defense of the anticlerical commenters at Political Animal/Kevin Drum and Eschaton/Atrios. The comment sections on both blogs are agnostic commons, a rare forum in an America which is generally not comfortably secular."
Quite so. Also, not to get too entangled in recovery-speak, but lots of people in our society are victims of religious abuse. Some of them are volubly pissed at anything resembling religion, which is hardly surprising.
I said that I don't want to live in a culture that doesn't have Lenny Bruce and The Life of Brian. I also don't want to live in a culture where it's inappropriate for people to make critical and even downright rude remarks about the often outrageous claims made on behalf of religion. Like government, religion has done inestimable damage to millions of people for thousands of years; the fact that its power is now kept in check, kind of, in our society and some other parts of the world, is the result of a lot of work, much of which involved saying some pretty impolite things about religion.
I just don't want to lose the extent to which religious feeling and commitment have historically been powerful engines of liberal (I use the word in its broadest sense) reform. Maybe it's not possible to have it both ways, and maybe the good and bad aspects of religion are often confusingly mixed together. (Making it, of course, unique among human institutions.) But I can't help but suspect it's possible to distinguish between (for instance) politically scheming archbishops and Jean-Paul Spiro's AIDS-patient-tending nuns.
"Jesus didn't say it was OK to call your brother a fool as long as you were witty about it."
Actually, I seem to recall Jesus losing his temper with foolishness a time or two.
Everybody does. I had my tongue partly in my cheek when I said "I just think people ought to be more or less decent to one another, or failing that, entertaining about it." But maybe I'll defend it as a moral formulation. Nobody's patience is infinite. We're all going to lose our temper at idiots sometime. When we do, far better to feel obliged to say something original that addresses the specific circumstance, rather than simply spewing boilerplate cliches that make nobody smarter.
I seem to be verging on the claim that good language is a moral obligation, and the can of worms is definitely perched on the edge of the slippery slope. Above deep waters, may I add.
The short version of my comment to the post below is this: I think people should write good letters to the media complaining about the terrible libel of Christianity that is being represented as "Christian".
From a confirmed agnostic, a note about atheism: it's illogical and therefore should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. To be an atheist you must know that no form of supreme/superior/all-knowing/knows-a-bunch/flawed-but-kind-angry/etc. being exists in the universe. You cannot suspect this and still be an atheist. Nope, you gotta know it down to your bones.
But that's impossible because we are simply not evolved enough, not intelligent and/or knowledgable to know that about the universe. We are not even evolved enough to know what dark matter is or to dissect the fabric of the cosmos. . . hell, it's been only a blink of the evolutionary eye since we figured out the internal combustion engine. And yet, there are those who have grasped an understanding of the universe so thoroughly that they know there is no god.
But they don't know it because humans have not developed the logical thought path that proves it. They might believe it, but that's different than knowing it. What they have isn't knowledge, but faith in their supposition.
Uh, please, not the "atheism is just another form of faith" argument again. I'm not an atheist, but I've never bought that one. My disbelief in the idea that ancient astronauts built the Great Pyramid isn't an act of "faith," it's an observation that I have absolutely no evidence for something which is on its face a pretty preposterous claim.
Waitaminute, Patrick - are you saying that dogs didn't fly spaceships?
But Patrick, how do you know what's out there? I mean, we can figure Ezekial was stoned out of his gourd when he saw the flying wheels, but that doesn't help us understand at all how the universe is structured. If you can refute the "atheism as faith" argument -- which I've never seen done -- then your sources are better than my sources. I maintain that it is the height of human arrogance to claim to know that we are the highest form of life in the universe, and that such a claim is merely evidence of our ignorance.
Ivor,
I had promised myself I wouldn't engage in the religious debate, but after reading your comment I do feel compelled to clarify one point ;)
(Btw I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, but the point I have to make is based on logic alone and does not necessitate a supporting theological theory)
Atheists need to KNOW and PROVE there is no God no more than theists -- whether monotheists or polytheists -- need to KNOW and PROVE there is a God(s).
What differentiates agnostics from atheists, to my understanding, is that whereas the former are unsure or skeptical either way, the latter are convicted in their BELIEF that there is no God. In the same way, theists believe that there is a God, but proof either way is something I have yet to come across -- hence both philosophy and theology have become as well developed over millennia as we find them today.
There is a very large difference between proving and believing. Of course, you could debate the theological ramifications of this forever. But the main point is that to dismiss atheism as illogical, when it can make sense from at least one logical point of view, is invalid.
Perhaps it can be considered illogical from a particular point of view -- but that does not make it illogical overall, and as such it cannot be disregarded by theological discussions.
One more note ;)
Atheism does not imply that we are the highest or the only forms of life in the universe. There are plenty of atheist scientists looking for life on Mars, aren't there? Atheism, by definition -- A-Theism -- means that one does not believe in God.
Yes, please. Let's not call atheists illogical. I'm an atheist, and my position is simply that life is too short to give much credence to improbable hypothetical entities that lack any supporting evidence for their existence. I disbelieve in god for the same rational reasons that I disbelieve in Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot. Ivor's characterization of atheists is simply bogus, rather like accusing all agnostics of being gutless, indecisive wimps, or all Christians of being witless sheep...all false.
Although I must admit that my objection to the responses to Atrios's post is that we see far too much sheep-like behavior from many Christians, who too readily identify with any old wolf (or oyster, or lichen, or mineral) that happens to have a fleece draped over it. There is a pattern of undiscriminating defense of anything labeled "Christian" that allows a lot of evil to flourish in this country.
My problem with religion is in the Nicene Creed, along with a whole bunch of other places, not all of the Abrahamic, never mind Christian --
One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
Not the 'holy' part -- everyone gets to form their own observational opinions about that one -- nor the 'apostolic' part -- a point of internal doctrine, seldom relevant to non-believers -- but the 'Catholic' part.
'Catholic' means 'universal'; that isn't a statement that the guy in
Rome gets to tell you what to do, it's a statement that these-here moral
teachings apply to all people, in all places, at all times.
That's the thing I have a problem with.
That's the thing that drives the demand for moral evaluation of public policy; if empiricism is acknowledged as a just and effective basis for making decisions, the universality goes.
If universality goes, everything in the public sphere goes, and the practice of religion and the questions of morality become personal matters of conscience, unable to support social power, hierarchy, or demands concerning the conduct of others.
That's the meaningful split, right there -- is this religious person claiming universality for their beliefs? Are they claiming that their morals must apply to me, irrespective of what I believe?
If they do not so claim, I can make common cause with them.
If they do claim universality, I cannot make common cause, because they're advancing something that is not only evil, but ineffective. ("The slaughter of millions is preferable to changing my mind" is an evil position; "but it should work that way!" when, obviously, empirically, observationally, it doesn't, is ineffective, as well as frequently shading into the first case the way hot tar shades into your white cotton shirt.)
Telling the one position from the other without asking isn't easy; members of the same congregation will often have markedly different positions about this question.
But the folks advancing universality for their system of belief, they're the enemy. They're the ones arguing for the moral necessity of the War on (Some) Drugs; they're the ones arguing for teaching outright, unhelpful lies to children ('intelligent design', 'abstinence is the only thing that works'), and they're the ones arguing for various doctrines of election ("If I'm rich, I deserve it; if you suffer, you deserve it", "I am subject solely to a higher law; you are subject to whatever I say the law is").
And, well, personally, experientially, they're the ones who see it as their proper and laudable duty to hurt me until I agree with them.
Which is why this is the only question where my emotional response starts with burning books, and becomes rapidly less nuanced from there.
Myerz,
(And now I guess I'm fully immersed in the religious debate, what have I been dragged into??)
It's funny you should say that, about a lot of Christians being witless sheep. I think that applies to a lot of people, regardless of their beliefs. A lot of people do not seem to need or care for a coherent moral foundation of their own, and would rather follow a prescribed one -- usually the one that comes in the cultural package handed down to them by their environment. If we go to Brazil, we see a lot of sheep-minded Catholics. We also see a lot of sheep-minded "spiritualists," pan-African orichas, Buddhists, etc. It's not that one religion in particular makes people more irrational -- although I've heard of some cults where the purpose is entirely to brainwash you (but that's another story).
I've come across some very intelligent, rational Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, you-name-it in my experience. But even these people do not always care to develop their theological foundation to any great extent. Religion all too often has only a functional purpose in many people's lives, and that is what they need and that is what they get out of it.
The same can be said, however, of people's philosophical convictions. How many people do you know that have formulated intricate philosophical theories to understand their world, and act accordingly? Most people, when asked, have very marked opinions about ethical issues -- often contradictory and without a cohesive moral thread. My point, then, is to say that if most people cannot be bothered even to think about their life from a macro perspective, how can we expect them to have their theological convictions any more solidly? I don't think the sheep-mentality is a good thing, I really don't like it at all. But i do think it's a human, rather than a Muslim, Christian, or atheist condition.
There is a very large difference between proving and believing.
Yes, I agree and that is my point. Proving -- and, therefore, knowing -- requires logic. Believing -- having faith -- does not.
If atheists are not illogical in their belief that there is no god, then how do we understand how they came to that belief? Logic is a discipline we use to seek conclusions. I am simply unaware of any logical thought contruction that can get us there from here. I argue that we do not yet possess sufficient understanding of the universe to reach the conclusion that a god/supremebeing/.400 hitter doesn't exist, any more than we can conclude that a god does exist.
Logic isn't the be all and end all of human life. If it were, then I wouldn't own a Ducati motorcycle. And three Triumphs.
Ivor's characterization of atheists is simply bogus, rather like accusing all agnostics of being gutless, indecisive wimps, or all Christians of being witless sheep...all false.
An illogical reading of my post, I believe. Agnosticism, at least as practiced by yours truly, is the acceptance and an unknown quantity in life when it comes to god. Agnosticism = Damned if I know. Atheism is an aboslute. Atheism = I know.
I just don't understand how anyone can truly know.
Ivor,
(and I promise myself this is my last reply, ugh)
Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do. Theists belive there is a God, and therefore they know. Similarly, athesist do not believe there is a God, and therefore they know. Although many points in religion are based on reason (such as developing theological beliefs to a full, cohesive state), I think the ultimate decision of whether or not you believe in God is based on faith. You cannot ask anyone to prove or disprove the existence of God. If we say that atheists are illogical for believing without proof, then we also have to throw theists in that same sack, and we are all illogical.
This is really a chestnut. Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying "I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force." They're saying "I don't have a positive belief in any God's existence." The constant gotcha! insistence that this constitutes some kind of "act of faith" is up there with the idea that, hunh hunh, that science stuff is just as much about faith as religion, since do you know how your television works, huh, betcha never thought of that.
Agnosticism ought, etymologically, to mean the belief that the nature of the universe is unknowable; but in practice most people who call themselves "agnostics" appear to be basically saying "I'm not sure" or "I don't know." A certain number of these "agnostics" seem to be wedded to the false idea that atheism is a kind of "faith", and regard their "agnosticism" as a form of disagreement with that. Thus Ivor's formulation "Agnosticism = Damned if I know. Atheism is an absolute. Atheism = I know." It's fine to take the position "damned if I know," but it's simply false to assert that everyone who calls themselves an atheist is making the totalizing claim that "I know." It's just plain not true. Yes, there are people who call themselves atheists and who make totalizing claims. And there are atheists and non-atheists who promulgate that as a definition of atheism. They're wrong, and they're misrepresenting the views of a lot of perfectly sensible atheists.
It seems to me that I've met two kinds of atheists--atheists for whom their atheism is clearly very important, a kind of substitute faith, and they're as threatened as any fundamentalist by anything that seems to be challenging that faith; and the other kind of atheists, the ones who just don't believe in God. The second kind are probably much more common, but, like Christians or Muslims who don't belong to one of the narrow, fundamentalist, you-must-all-live-exactly-the-way-I-say-because-God-told-me-so sects, they're a lot less visible, precisely because they're just getting on with living their lives the way they believe they should, rather than trying to enlighten everyone who disagrees with them.
Ivor,
You've started from a position where faith is assumed to be necessary to hold a position, and (so far as I can tell) that it's necessary to hold absolute positions.
Start from some other place, and you get different answers.
John-Paul often has great posts.
I sometimes think that on the left, the only religious maxim that even the atheists need a version of is:
"By their acts shall ye know them."
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying "I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force."
But is that individual truly an atheist in the mainstream definition of the term? I say "no." You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism.
Patrick, in your post I see some of the same arrogance that prompted this conversation in the first place, that of non-believers smirking at the believers. You somehow "know" that you have the straight dope, and you ridicule those who aren't on the same path. I think you should take a step back and analyze your thoughts, yes, more logically.
Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do.
My last post, too.
Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical. If you "know" something but have no proof, your belief is illogical.
Okay, all done. Let's return to the world, already in progress.
Graydon: I prefer the usage in "I have catholic tastes," which doesn't mean I like all music, but that of the great smorgasbord of music, I can like Louis Armstrong and The Beatles and Beethoven and The Amazing Rhythm Aces and Nine Inch Nails all at the same time, even though there's some stuff I'm not wild about.
Avedon --
I don't have a problem with that usage, but I don't think it can properly be applied to the meaning intended by the Nicene Creed.
It certainly cannot be applied to the very real claim of universality modernly made by various Christian sects -- all times, all places, all people, and some of them, in a terrible absence of history, mean that with neither nuance nor irony.
I wrote:
"Come on, people, get it straight. Most people who call themselves atheists are not saying 'I know everything about the universe and therefore I am confident there's no divine force.' They're saying 'I don't have a positive belief in any God's existence.'"
"Ivor the Engine Driver" responded:
"But is that individual truly an atheist in the mainstream definition of the term?"
Yes.
"You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism."
No, I don't think so. A review of several dictionaries reveals a considerable range of definitions for both words. Under the circumstances, it seems fair to examine what most people who actually call themselves "atheists" or "agnostics" actually mean by that. Using my own experience as a base, I'm pretty confident in my assertion that most self-described atheists are simply expressing lack of belief, as opposed to making an unprovable, totalizing claim. I'm similarly confident in my other assertion, that most self-described agnostics are expressing some nuance of doubtfulness or unsurety. (With a nod toward those agnostics who actually believe, as the word's origins would imply, that the question is literally unanswerable.)
I'm sorry if this seems to you like "blurring the lines," but I suggest that the lines aren't really where you think they are.
"Patrick, in your post I see some of the same arrogance that prompted this conversation in the first place, that of non-believers smirking at the believers."
That's a pretty gratuitous ad hominem. At whom do you suppose that I'm "smirking"? My remarks in this exchange have been in defense of the intellectual integrity of atheism. Many--probably the majority--of my friends are atheists. I'm not, but I have a lot of respect for my friends.
"You somehow 'know' that you have the straight dope, and you ridicule those who aren't on the same path."
I'm not sure where the word "know" got its scare quotes in your sentence, but I think if you review our exchange, you'll find that I've done more than simply make the argument from authority. Quite the contrary, I've backed up my conclusions by pointing to discernable facts in the real world.
As for "ridicule," I really don't think the term "chestnut" in reference to your original argument is actually all that severe.
"I think you should take a step back and analyze your thoughts, yes, more logically."
This is of course good advice for most people most of the time, me included, but having gone over our exchange so far, I find I'm reasonably happy with the level of logic I've brought to it. Would you like to respond by citing something other than the fact that you're really, really sure your definitions are correct? Or is your response really limited to the suggestion that I'm arrogant and wrong to disagree with you?
Patrick,
I'd ignore Joel and his attention seeking, as that's at the root of all his posting of comments like he did regarding you and Kevin. He tried this with me last year, and it's just not worth the agita. He's all that's bad with the Left.
I am reminded of my occasional encounters with adamant creationists who insist that the defining characteristics of evolutionists are that they hate god, and that their goal is to destroy society. Never mind that I can produce lists of Christian evolutionary biologists and that many of them are working in universities to better people's educations--their definition is absolute and any contradiction with it means that I'm just trying to mislead them about the real meaning of evolution.
Ivor's insistence that all atheists are claiming absolute knowledge is the same thing, and he's reacting in the same way to any argument that shows that his beliefs are erroneous.
Elsewhere, Hlvictoria wrote:
"Atheists do not need to prove there is no God anymore than theists do."
To which "Ivor the Engine Driver" responded:
"Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical."
I don't think that word "supports" means what you think it means.
"If you 'know' something but have no proof, your belief is illogical."
As has been pointed out now by multiple people in this exchange, the claim to positively "know" the non-existence of God is not inherent to atheism. This is true in connection with both (1) the uses to which the word has been historically put and (2) the way millions of self-identified atheists describe their beliefs today. In insisting against all evidence that atheism necessarily entails a totalizing belief, you're either claiming that a very large number of otherwise benign people are mysteriously lying about their true beliefs, or you're putting remarkably little energy into taking on board observations and comments which don't happen to completely agree with the notions you brought to this conversation in the first place. Either way, it wouldn't seem like you ought to be the first person to be accusing others of "arrogance."
Scott, that sounds like excellent advice, but (I am honestly not joking, this is a real question) who is "Joel"?
(glyph of briefly wondering if he slipped from one parallel universe into the one next door)
I would commend to Igor's attention this article (one of many) on the difference between strong and weak atheism.
Ivor, let's look at the dictionary definitions, shall we? After all, "mainstream" is not a reasonable classification, as my impression of mainstream atheism is clearly radically different than yours.
These are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.
agnostic: n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
atheist: n. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
The very definitions of the words allow for the existence of a kind of 'agnostic atheism', as it were. Not all atheists are of the American Atheists variety, which tends to be the "There is no God and we know better than you do" type with which you appear to have a problem. Most atheists, in my experience, do not fall into this latter category, which I call "hardliner atheism". Rather, atheists tend to simply want proof that there is a God, and in the absence of that proof do not believe. Seems pretty logical to me.
Your above post supports my contention that atheists are illogical. If you "know" something but have no proof, your belief is illogical.
Atheists are both logical and illogical because before they are atheists, they are human, and thus full of many contradictory sentiments. However. I do take offense at being written off as illogical (as I do considder myself an atheist).
As I see it, I'm mostly (about 90%) sure there is no God. I can't prove there isn't because you can't prove a negative. You can, however, prove a positive, but no one has proven the existence of God that is even remotely satisfactory. I think we can agree upon this point. If there were such a satisfactory proof of the existence of God, a logical person, like myself, would accept it. After all, I don't dispute the existence of gravity or neutrons just to spite the Gravitists or Neutronists. We have pretty indisputable proof of the positive existence of both gravity and neutrons. Even though I can't see them with my eyes, I can see the effects of their existence. Thus, denying the existence of either gravity or neutrons would be irrational.
You cannot say the same about God and back it up with any sort of evidence, which is why I'm pretty damn sure there isn't such a being. Notice I say pretty sure, not absolutely sure. Because if modern science has taught us anything, it's that we can't really be absolutely sure of anything, only reasonable sure. This relative certainty may not answer all the pesky problems about existence but it gives us enough of a foundation to live our lives in a meaningful way, without having to rely any longer on fairy tales as a catchall for things we can't explain.
Graydon: As I read it, 'catholic' in the Nicene creed is simply saying "As Christians, we hold these truths to be self-evident; never mind whether you pray standing up or sitting down, if you subscribe to these beliefs, you're part of a wider catholic church." After all, Nicea was about defining doctrine that all the churches could agree upon.
(Note: I'm just a clergy brat, not a theologian or church scholar. YMMV, the value of souls can go up as well as down, etc. etc.)
Patrick: I assumed "Joel" was the guy you first linked to, at http://www.notfrisco2.com/webzine/Joel/archives/004690.html.
That insistance on logic in matters of faith sounds strange to me. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, logic hasn't been proven. The law of identity hasn't been proven. Belief in logic could therefore be pressured as being yet another act of faith, even if it's one who bears fruit in daily routine applications.
Personally, I think faith don't need to be logical, whether it was imposed by background settings or chosen through personal (?) reflexions.
We don't need to be nicer to people of any other belief, religious, political or whatsoever, so that they are nice to us back in return. We need to be just, which with luck will earn us the respect of some of these people, the ones we can, and may, work with toward a common goal. This implies stating divergence of opininons, bringing to light abusive positions of any party and struggling against when needed. It implies also giving credits and paying respect where dues.
This may appear childish to the rogish political mind, but in this I believe.
I think Ivor is mistaking, "I have no faith in the existence of God," for, "I have faith that there are no Gods."
A formulation I read somewhere or other that I quite like goes: atheism is a religious belief in the same way that absolute zero is a temperature. To me, the notion that there's this all-knowing, all-seeing being who cares about what we do on this insignigficant speck we live on is self-evidently absurd in the same way that, say, the contention that the Earth is surrounded by an intangible and invisible field of cheese is. Both are equally impervious to scientific testing and my 'faith' in believing each to be nonsense is about the same. I suppose that makes me an 'acheesist' too. I'm kind of irritated that my opinion on the particular preposterous assertion that is God is considered somehow different in kind to that I might hold on any other preposterous assertion. Because it's so important *to them* theists seem unable to comprehend that it could possibly be this level of unimportant to others but, trust me, it is.
I was very sensibly going to stay out of this, but one of my pet peeves was triggered. The notion that God wouldn't care about us because we're small and weak and live on a small planet around an ordinary G-type star, blah, blah, blah, is silly. By "silly" I mean it contradicts the moral principles most of us claim to believe in. For instance, suppose scientists discovered a mud puddle inhabited by a species of intelligent microbes. Would we say we shouldn't care about them because they're just a bunch of insignificant amoebas sitting there waiting to dry up and perish? Might as well drain the puddle and put in a parking lot, I guess.
So if God exists, He wouldn't care about us because we're too small to matter? Sheesh, if that's His attitude, I'd be an atheist myself. But my own belief is that God is better than humans, not worse.
Ivor: You are blurring the lines between agnosticism and atheism.
That’s sort of like blurring the lines between fruit and vegetables.
The mere fact that two words exist does not guarantee that there will always be a bright-line distinction you can draw between them.
Life of Brian
It is very much the sort of film you would expect from a bunch of iconoclastic, well-educated, people who know both history and how to be funny.
And, after The Passion of the Christ, I'm glad to hear that Life of Brian may get a cineema release,
Though it may have been confusing enough that The Passion of the Christ shared some cinemas with The Return of the King
From a confirmed agnostic, a note about atheism: it's illogical and therefore should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. To be an atheist you must know that no form of supreme/superior/all-knowing/knows-a-bunch/flawed-but-kind-angry/etc. being exists in the universe. You cannot suspect this and still be an atheist. Nope, you gotta know it down to your bones.
Crap, nonsense, and posthumously-written L. Ron Hubbard novels.
As has been mentioned, several times, you are willfully refusing to differentiate between the two distinct philosophical statements that form the generally-recognized poles of atheism: "I believe/can prove that there is no god" and "I haven't yet seen any evidence in favor of the existence of a god." *
The "strong atheist/weak atheist" description is a good one; in my own mental filing cabinet, I've always labelled the positions "active atheism" and "passive atheism."
For quite a while, I thought of myself as an agnostic (believing in an unnamed higher power, but not in organized worship) until it gradually dawned on me that I had absolutely no feelings of "faith" in any sense. I don't believe in worship. I have no worshipful, thankful, or vengeful feelings toward any higher or unseen powers. In fact, I don't accept, logically or emotionally, the division of events into "natural" and "supernatural" categories. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the universe around me requires (or would be enhanced by) the existence of higher/unseen powers. So I'm a classic "weak" or "passive" atheist; "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" strikes me as a wonderful idea.
Something may yet come along to change that belief; this is the crucial point you continue to miss or ignore. Weak/passive atheists don't spit on possibilities; we wait for what we believe to be sufficiently irrefutable evidence.
I can't and don't speak for strong/active atheists here-- remember, I disagree with their approach. When you criticize them, you're not even touching the edges of my own philosophy.
I understand the constant temptation to look cross-eyed at theists and supernaturalists, believe me-- the attractive urge to congratulate oneself for being "stronger" or "more rational," for not using religion as a "crutch." I mean, recite Henley's "Invictus" in front of me and I'm ready to punch angels in the face-- bring 'em on.
But.
I know too many decent, mature, rational, and responsible theists (and too many mean-spirited, self-satisfied evangelical atheists) to imagine that my club already owns Park Place and Boardwalk on the Monopoly board of spiritual truth.
I've had too many sleepless nights, close scrapes, and sad losses in life to begrudge anyone else whatever philosophy helps get them through those same events, and helps them appreciate this world to the fullest while they're here, so long as they don't start setting other people on fire because of it.
So, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop kicking straw men in the face and patting yourself on the back for it. Real arguments by real people who hold real beliefs have been set before you here. Ignoring our points won't mark you as a bold crusader for truth; it'll prove that you're a smug-souled nutsucker with both thumbs up your mental bunghole.
Cheers,
SL
*"God," in these sentences, is used as convenient shorthand for every possible manner of god, gods, spiritual forces, banished thetans, unseen powers, collective unconsciouses, tentacled horrors, etc.; imagine it as such and save us all many long paragraphs of defining terms, splitting hairs, and re-inventing wheels. ;)
Rob Hansen wrote:
"I'm kind of irritated that my opinion on the particular preposterous assertion that is God is considered somehow different in kind to that I might hold on any other preposterous assertion. Because it's so important *to them* theists seem unable to comprehend that it could possibly be this level of unimportant to others but, trust me, it is."
The only part of this I object to is the notion that "theists" are inevitably the ones who can't comprehend your position. Looking at this particular instantiation of the argument, for instance, it looks awfully like it's been self-declared agnostics attacking the intellectual integrity of atheism, and more than one theist defending it.
Which probably proves, at the very least, that people aren't always predictable.
Well, I, for one, have proof of god's non-existence which works for me as their own private proofs of god's exitence works for my friends who believe. I don't necessarily expect anyone else to buy it, but it works for me.
MKK
Scott, how would you distinguish between "weak/passive" atheism and agnosticism?
As I understand it:
An agnostic doesn't believe in the rituals, dogmas, or conclusions of any organized religious sect, but believes in a spiritual something, however vague or idiosyncratic their conception of that something might be.
An atheist doesn't even believe in that spiritual something.
Scott — Very nicely put, especially the bit about the Monopoly board.
Mark — A slightly different place to draw the line would be this: My current working hypothesis is that there is no God, so I call myself an atheist. If I didn’t feel I had enough evidence even to form a working hypothesis, I might call myself an agnostic.
Life of Brian is good, but I wonder if the better antidote to The Passion might not be Hellboy, instead.
Crap, nonsense, and posthumously-written L. Ron Hubbard novels.
This isn't really that difficult to comprehend, Scott. If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.
My position is that it is possible for an agnostic belief to be logical, but that it is impossible for atheistic belief to be logical.
So, Ivor, are you ready to admit that belief is illogical, or is this only a one-way street?
This conversation is valuable, if for no other reason than it demonstrates that emotional responses to external doubts about one's belief system aren't limited to rightwing Old Testament thumpers. A simple statement, that it is impossible to build a rational, logical basis for atheism because we as a race are too ignorant of the facts about our existence to make such a construct, elicits from some a lucid and measured response, but from others insults and off point arguments.
Life of Brian is good, but I wonder if the better antidote to The Passion might not be Hellboy, instead.
I nominate Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers
Ivor, in my experience there are two flavors of agnostics: the kind who dip their toes into various forms of religion without ever committing, and the kind who are indistinguishable from atheists but lack the courage of their convictions. Which are you?
Ivor,
By your own standards, agnosticism is equally illogical, since you can't prove that there isn't enough evidence to decide whether or not God exists. For that matter, you can't prove that Marduk, Santa Claus, or the Loch Ness monster don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that you don't believe in any of them.
If proof were required for belief, it would be impossible to believe almost anything. Fortunately, we don't require proof for belief; instead, we tentatively accept the best explanation available, knowing full well that new evidence may invalidate it at some point. Proof is required for certainty, but as has been pointed out about a thousand times already, atheists don't usually claim certainty.
In my opinion, a universe without God fits the evidence better than a universe with God. That's why I call myself an atheist. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if persuasive evidence for God's existence can be mustered, but that doesn't make me an agnostic.
And yet, it seems to me that your own position is one based on emotion rather than logic, Ivor. How are we to reconcile these two opposed views?
Because, you see, it is the very nature of faith that it is, you know, faith. Whereas unbelief is merely the absense of faith.
I'm beginning to think that one of 2 things is true about Ivor. 1. He is, or believes he is, vastly superior to the rest of us and is enlightening us about the error of our ways in all kindness. 2. He is a troll of a slightly different sort. Perhaps it's time he had a chat with T if she's finished with the roses and with supper.
MKK
Huxley coined the term "agnostic" to distinguish himself from religious people and Ivor's notion of atheists, but it's obvious reading his writings that I'd call him an atheist like myself now:
"That 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. ["Agnosticism and Christianity", 1889]"
Probably a Southall fan, too.
I couldn't resist commenting on the definition of atheism, since I am an atheist and I consider my position to be entirely logical.
I think that one of the problems with defining atheism and agnosticism is the imperfection of the English language and confusion over the definitions of the words "knowledge" and "belief".
It is not possible to "know" anything about the material world in the sense that we know that 1 + 1 = 2 in the abstract world of natural numbers where we have defined all the rules. It is also not possible to "prove" anything - merely to have a sensible theory which does not contradict any of the available evidence.
(The screen you're reading this on - you may say you "know" that it's the same screen that was there yesterday, but it is conceivable that invisible, intangible space aliens beamed into your room last night, stole your computer screen and replaced it with a perfect replica, right down to the chips, scratches and dust bunnies, for reasons known only to themselves.)
When I say that I "know" something about the physical world, I actually mean "believe beyond any reasonable doubt". It's linguistic shorthand.
I am as confident in my belief that there is no god as I am in my belief that gravity will continue to work tomorrow. Therefore I call myself an atheist. If I were undecided (whether it was because I hadn't properly considered the issue, or because I did not consider all the available information to be conclusive), I would call myself agnostic.
What I believe to be true stems from a logical analysis of what I can observe about the world, and the opinions of trusted sources.
There are people who believe things for irrational reasons - because they really, really, really want them to be true, or because they were taught them in childhood and were never willing to question them, or because they accepted some attractive but flawed reasoning, or all of the above. This does not imply that belief itself is irrational or illogical.
However, there seem to be people who follow the nonsensical semantic path of "'belief' means blind, unfounded faith, therefore when somebody claims to believe something they are being illogical". Which is just silly.
*Grins at thought of Ivor chatting with T.*
Would that be like throwing a lion to a christian?
Thanks for the image, MKK.
Ivor wrote:
This isn't really that difficult to comprehend, Scott. If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.
You're right, provided they cite no evidence. But I cite the evidence of my own experience and observations, as does, oh, every human being on the face of the flippin' planet when discussing their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Now, replace "god" in your paragraph above with "Loch Ness Monster" or "Tooth Fairy" or "Outstanding Rob Liefeld Illustration" to see how elementary the flaw in your alleged logic is. Do you believe in any of those three things? According to you, if someone can't prove that they don't exist, it's illogical to not believe in them. That's craptacular enough, but you also have the problem of continually confusing "categorical denial" and "simple disbelief."
It would indeed be illogical for me to claim that "God" absolutely cannot exist. It's nothing near illogical for me to claim that the evidence I've seen so far indicates that "God" does not exist. And if you can't wrap your brain around that, Ivor, you're the one who's either a) having comprehension problems or b) being deliberately disingenuous.
My position is that it is possible for an agnostic belief to be logical, but that it is impossible for atheistic belief to be logical.
And your position is demonstrably wrong. You're very welcome to feel that way all you like, to be sure of it on a deep and emotional level; just don't pretend for a second that "logic" backs it up in any way.
Now, let's look at what we have so far.
The Ivor Argument Timeline
1. You make sweeping and moderately insulting statements of opinion backed by wonky logic.
2. You are justly and accurately refuted, not necessarily with malice, but with verve and vigor, from multiple viewpoints.
3. You call Patrick "smirking" and "arrogant," which he hasn't been. You'd know it if Patrick had it in for you; I mean, it would be more obvious than someone running your grandmother over with a Zamboni. It would be flagrant.
4. Then, because you're being an obstinate jerk, you get an ass-walloping from posters who know more about what you're talking about than you do.
5. You then enter passive-aggressive mode, claiming that your opponents are big meanies with no recourse but to call you names, conveniently ignoring your own initiation of Part 3 in this little history.
6. I call you an obstreporous chickenshit arguing in bad faith.
You, sir or madam, are an obstreporous chickenshit arguing in bad faith. From Electrolite's heart, I stab at thee; for amusement's sake, I spit my last ad hominem at thee; get bent.
Ta,
SL
*"God," in these sentences, is used as convenient shorthand for every possible manner of god, gods, spiritual forces, banished thetans, unseen powers, collective unconsciouses, tentacled horrors, etc.; imagine it as such and save us all many long paragraphs of defining terms, splitting hairs, and re-inventing wheels. ;)
I use the term 'the Divine'. This may not cover all the ground, but it does provide a neutral court for practitioners of different religions to discuss their spiritual similarities. Sometimes.
'Illogical' has a negative connotation; it implies that the person or belief is attempting logic and failing. 'Irrational' carries a similar load. I use 'non-rational' when I'm talking about my reasons for believing something that doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of my scientific mind.
Reason is a good tool. However, it doesn't have to be the only tool in the toolbox. There's room for faith (whatever that means to you), intuition, and any number of other things including 'that funny feeling I get in my eyes with the slight auditory hallucination of scratchy humming' -- which I think means something, but I don't know what. I'm fine with that.
About stuff looking like nails? Yeah.
Science is based on a kind of consciously adopted objectivity which is, I think, akin to agnosticism. If a physicist wants to prove that the zingo quark is the second cousin twice removed of the bingo quark, s/he may devise an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment proves that actually they're unrelated little buggers, a physicist of any integrity will publish those results -- or even results that are inconclusive.
Prior to any experiment, there will be physicists who believe in the relationship and physicists who don't, but these beliefs are rather loosely held until the experiment is done. This is why some agnostics say that atheism is unscientific, because they think that atheists are holding a belief too strongly where no verifying experiment has been (or can be) done.
But religious belief is not the same as scientific belief. Heat water and it boils; tell me that heating water makes it freeze and I'll just tell you "Wrong!" Tell me that Amaunet is the wife of Amon and the Goddess of the Night, and I'll tell you "That's interesting." Do I believe you? Well...whether the ancient Egyptians believed that is a matter of research, like with the quarks. Whether I worship Amaunet as the Goddess of Night is a matter of my personal choice - it's an "act-as-if."
Atheists can be anything from fanatical "there is no God" types to people who see no evidence and choose the "act-as-if" of not worshipping, not believing. I know people who don't really believe in the Christian teachings they were raised in as a factual matter, but who continue to "act-as-if" as Christians, because a life without faith is too bleak. Is that an irrational choice?
I don't think 'logical' and 'illogical' are terms that apply very well to matters of spiritual belief (or lack thereof). It's just not the right mode of discourse. Atheism is certainly a spiritual position (just as absolute zero is a place on the scale of temperature). Is it a religion? Bad question; unanswerable.
Avram:
I take exception to your wanting to divide agnostics into two categories, which I boil down from your formulation as being:
1) people without the courage to commit to a religion and
2) people who don't believe in God, but are afraid to call themselves atheists.
1) There are agnostics who have tried committing to a religion and later changed their minds about it. ("I used to believe in God; but now I feel I *just don't know* what's true. It no longer makes sense to me to pray.")
2) There are agnostics who feel that they don't have the mental capacity or empirical information to formulate an opinion one way or the other. If you tell these people: "Since you say you don't have enough evidence to make you believe in God, then you're an intellectual coward unless you deny God's existence," you're going to make them angry.
One of the problems attached to this is the use of the word "God." Some agnostics try to deal with the question using other formulations, such as "First Cause," "Creator," "Supreme Creator," "Demiurge" and others.
Some people will respond differently to questions involving belief in the existence of subtly different entities or forces.
In my mental dictionary, "agnostic" still translates as "I don't feel capable or competent to make a pronouncement on this issue," and is still a position that deserves respect.
My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."
Sometimes, emotionally, I feel like something must have caused the universe for a reason. Other times I feel "Hey. The universe is a cold place that's mechanically working on a bunch of engineering problems. Consciousness is a byproduct."
But when I feel emotionally swayed by the second idea, I still have the comfort of the gnosticism popularized in s-f fandom by Phil Dick: "love might not have been present at the beginning; but the universe is working on it."
We're all going to lose our temper at idiots sometime. When we do, far better to feel obliged to say something original that addresses the specific circumstance, rather than simply spewing boilerplate cliches that make nobody smarter.
This would be the "lesser of two evils" argument?
Another take would be that it's actually worse to be witty and original, because you're candy-coating it and perhaps making its effects worse. We've all seen people hide poisonous words by saying "geez, it's a joke, lighten up!" and certainly an insult is more likely to be remembered and repeated if it's funny.
Jesus did flip out at the moneylenders in the temple, and didn't have much patience for hypocrites, but I'm pretty sure he didn't indulge in Limbaugh-style name-calling, and I'm positive he said that calling your brother a fool was not on God's happy list.
Of course we all screw up; we're human, and from the Christian point of view we're all sinners. Seems to me the response to that is to try not to sin, and to make amends when we do--not because we want to be nice to the right wing, but because that's what God asks of us.
(I realize, Patrick, that you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's just that holding one's bile is one of those virtues that right-wing Christians conveniently ignore because it's not as satisfying as, say, telling gays that God hates them. I like to think we can be more Godly than that. For one thing, it annoys the ever-loving snot out of 'em.)
Lenny Bailes refers to:
"the gnosticism popularized in s-f fandom by Phil Dick: 'love might not have been present at the beginning; but the universe is working on it.'"
One of life's great disappointments is the discovery that this isn't actually the theology of that denomination that calls themselves the "Assembly of God."
Mythago, I figure my fool-killing habit just means I have to work harder at other, more positive virtues to make up for it. Meanwhile, for onlookers, entertainment! Everybody wins.
Atheism is certainly a spiritual position (just as absolute zero is a place on the scale of temperature).
I don't like this analogy, because I think questions of spirituality aren't necessarily related to the existence of God (or gods). I believe in the sacred; all you have to do is take one look at Mount Shasta and you can see that it's a sacred mountain. I just think that spirituality is intrinsic to consciousness rather than extrinsic. I don't feel that that diminishes it in any way.
My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."
My atheist response is "I don't know, but saying 'God did it' leads us further from explanation rather than closer to it." At some point, something rather than nothing just is. I don't see any advantage in pushing that is-ness back a level.
Language is an interesting thing. It is far less precise than we might like it to be, but it is also far more precise than we'd like it to be, sometimes. Everyone has, in their head, their own set of connections and connotations, rather like an individual subset of the language. If you want an example, ask people what the difference between "grey" and "gray" is.
Just because language builds personal, and sometimes idiosyncratic relationships in our brains doesn't mean that it has no meaning. The meanings are developed as an agreement between people who speak the language, and those meanings develop and those relationships change over time. Language is mutable. It is not, however, mere noise. Nor is it one person's privilege.
Agnostics and atheists are always identifying themselves and each other as one or the other. Various religious people will also sometimes use those terms to describe themselves. (What is the apocryphal story about the man who, on his death bed, is alleged to have said, "There is no god, and Mary is his mother"?)
When terms start clashing, though, nothing is going to make any damn sense at all until you get your terms straight. Since no one lives in any head but his own, if the dispute is about the meaning of words, the dictionary is a reasonable authority. Someone else's idiosyncratic usage, developed over years, based on experiences not shared with the rest of the people in the discussion, are actually worse than useless, they are confusing. They lack the weight of agreement that normal words used in conventional fashions have. We're going for clarity, here, not poetry. Let’s start by sticking with the OED, which is a pretty authoritative source. Suzanne (than you) quotes it as saying:
agnostic: n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
atheist: n. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
Italics mine. Please note that unknown and unknowable isn’t the same thing is denial or disbelief, and that in fact, denial and disbelief aren’t the same thing, either.
Ivor, you seem to have a problem with believing that your own usages are laws of the universe, which is pretty strange, really, since language isn't a law of the universe, it's an approximation of agreements made over generations between people who speak roughly the same tongue. Not only do you seem to be trying to redefine atheist, but you also seem to be attempting to redefine logic and rationality.
If someone states that he/she is an atheist because he/she does not believe in the existence of god, yet he/she can provide no evidence to substantiate the belief, then the belief is emotional and illogical.
Ok, you probably haven't noticed you're cheating, here, but you are. You can't prove a negative. There is no good evidence for ancient astronauts, reincarnation, or God. Failing to believe in something for which there is no evidence is not illogical or emotional. Refusing to believe in something for which there is good evidence, like evolution, or the New York Subway, is illogical and irrational. Believing and not believing are not the same thing, either. Belief is an action. Failure to believe is not an action, it is the lack of one.
Denial is an action, but, it is hardly irrational. I disbelieve in Atlantis. How much evidence do you think I need before I can be accounted rational in this disbelief? Hint: none. That damn proving a negative thing, again.
I acknowledge the existence of people for whom the emotional basis of their universe is the absence of any invisible power. Lots of people have issues with religion. I certainly do. However, lots of people have emotional issues with almost anything. I used to know a woman who had serious emotional issues with eating a balanced diet. Just because she was bug-fuck on the topic doesn't mean that people who think that eating a healthy and balanced diet are all doing so because of deep-seated emotional issues.
This conversation is valuable, if for no other reason than it demonstrates that emotional responses to external doubts about one's belief system aren't limited to rightwing Old Testament thumpers.
*sputter* You condescending git. You think I don't know that? Or Patrick, or Xopher, or most of the people who've been posting here?
A simple statement, that it is impossible to build a rational, logical basis for atheism because we as a race are too ignorant of the facts about our existence to make such a construct
Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant, and will remain too ignorant, to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe? In essence, you are once again insisting that someone prove a negative. Again, that's cheating. It is also illogical, by definition. For something to be logical, it has to be disprovable. You also need to provide a logical structure to explain why it is that atheism and theism require different levels of proof, seeing as you’ve set up a dualism where one of them must be believed. So far, you haven't offered anything more solid than an implied Pascal's Wager, and if you want to hare off into that, we can, but I warn you, I'm not the only person here who's had that particular philosophical chestnut for lunch.
Well, my goodness. I go away for a few hours and look what happens. We have got to come up with the equivalent of a RASFF Award, in this case so we can give one to Scott Lynch.
Ivor the Engine Driver is no great mystery: First, he's a Who fan. Second, he fancies himself (someone has to) a logician. Third, he unfortunately has failed to understand that what logic does is test propositions. Logic is to data as a flush is to four of a kind. Fourth, he has failed to understand that Mr. Spock is a fictional character.
This isn't going to be as elegant as one of Mike Ford's or Virge's, and it's in a less respectable poetic form than they would use, but:
There was a logician named Ivor
Less ingenious by far than McGyver.
Definitions, he found,
Were diffuse and unsound.
Quelle fromage, sucker. Cry me a Ryver.
Jakob --
I'd call that a politer way to interpret the creed, and have to trouble with such a doctrine.
I trust we can agree that there are quite some number of folks who will argue that their moral system does extend to all people, in all times, and all places, and that some of them have described themselves as Christians?
Lenny, you’re wrong. I never said anything about courage in my description of the first type of agnostic. Those types — I think of them as “seekers” — are just happier looking for a spiritual path than actually sticking with one. Courage doesn’t have to enter into it.
It’s the second type I think lack courage. They are indistinguishable from atheists in the ways they live their lives, but for some odd reason are frightened of the word “atheism”.
Drawing a distinction between atheists and this second type of agnostic is essentially arguing that the position one takes in college late-night bull sessions is of more import than the actual effect that beliefs (or lack of beliefs) has on one’s life.
Graydon, my moral system extends to all people etc. insofar as it lays certain responsibilities on me.
Rob, I think I have some points coming for having never, ever tried to impose any kind of theism on you. In fact, your existence has informed my spiritual life; so neener.
Avram, I think of your second type as people who find they don't believe, and hope that if that turns out to be the wrong guess, He won't take it personally.
Lenny says:
"agnostic" still translates as "I don't feel capable or competent to make a pronouncement on this issue," and is still a position that deserves respect.
I rather like the formulation: I'm a militant agnostic; I don't know, and neither do you.
I believe in the real world, the solid, measurable, scientifically examinable world, the one where rocks are solid and the stars are lit by fusion, one we can study and understand. Infinitely complex, but not mysterious, not arcane. This is an axiom, it's not debatable. Solipsism is the next door down.
I also believe in the world of experience, which is where I actually live, what with being a bag of protoplasm hooked up to the world via nerves that feed into a not entirely reliable neural network. Experiences are interesting, often valuable, but not measurable. Hopefully, most of my experiential world is congruent with the empirical world, but that will not always be the case.
If there is an invisible world, then everything I read and know about people's reports of it suggest that it exists in the world of experience, not the solid, measurable world. I've had my own experiences which appear to have been of a metaphysical nature. Mystical events happen to people, inside people, and cannot be transferred.
It seems to me that if the invisible world could be measured, weighed, tagged, and understood, it would cease to be numinous, and become a part of the real world, as fascinating as science, but not more.
Since the invisible world would cease to be mystical if were a part of the real world, and since the invisible world can only be experienced, and experiences can be related but not truly shared, then I don't think it is possible for anyone to say anything about the invisible world that is definitive for anyone but themselves. It's not possible for me to know if your experience of the divine is anything like mine. The very nature of transcendence is such that it cannot be communicated, only experienced.
My ongoing Sunday question is: "If something came out of nothing; why did it happen?" I'm open to hearing responses to it from atheists. My own current response to it is "I don't know."
I don't remember who it was, alas, but it was a respected physicist. His response was, "That's not a meaningful question." That answer contents me. Asking for the first cause is like asking for a picture of the square root of negative one. The first cause, on a cosmological level, is not the logical question that it seems to be, up here at the macro scale. Hell, our time only runs one direction. Math allows us to describe things we cannot comprehend. The first cause can't even be described in math.
Those types — I think of them as “seekers” — are just happier looking for a spiritual path than actually sticking with one.
Avram, I guarantee you I'm not afraid of the word atheist. Neither am I a seeker. I'd just as soon the invisible world left me alone. For the most part, it does. I figure, if there is such a thing as ennlightenment, I'll work on it next lifetime round. This time through, I'm pedalling as fast as I can just to keep up.
There's also the problem of the scope of the question.
One God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisibleI do not believe in whatsoever, so by that measure I am an atheist.
The White Christ, God of book-learning, peacemaking, and kindness to strangers I believe in, but do not follow; the Watchmaking God, who set the Heavens in Their Courses, doesn't exist, though the temples of His followers are amazing things. Yahweh the Storm God has way too many believers, and I don't care to be one of them. The Old God the Father, the one the Christians had up from the Fall of Rome until a couple centuries before Martin Luther, and in whose honour there are many works of hand, from Eadfrith's Gospels and the Rule of Benedict to the bright glass and dark stones of tall cathedrals I would call worthy of respect, and gone from the world, both together.
Red Thor on the world's walls, and Half-faced Hel, and Seaxneat of the Walls and Ditches, I call real, and worth remembrance; Skadhi of the Skis, and Sif of the Golden Hair, and Uller of the Bow, these also, who will be the friends of men.
Earendel the Mariner, who glitters above the twilight, he is surely not real, but worth remembrance anyway. So is Old Theoden, and the shadow of Arthur holding honour better than life, and peace better than honour.
Where in that is a certainty of belief?
I do not call the one thing in my head a fact and the other thing a belief because the neurons are different, because there is a change in the chemistry; it is all in my head called true. Facts are things outside any one person's head, independent of singular belief. Even when we learn what can be a fact, left to itself and the consensus that upholds it, it stops being one when it gets inside any one person's head, and it is well to recall that. Certainty twists in the hand, and the mind, and the heart, never more than an idea, and not strong by itself.
Gracious, this one's hard to keep up with.
Teresa -- that's why they say duty is heavier than a mountain, I do believe.
What obligation you assume for yourself is just that; it's not a claim that I, or anyone, is similarly obliged. I'd be a larger fool than I usually manage to be to object to that.
Avram, since you insisted on reopening this I'll take a swing at what Lenny seems not have to have carried you on.
I came to a state of disbelief some 35 years ago, after some years of questioning, and later modified it to "I don't \know/ but it seems unlikely." (I don't consider that a statement of belief; I will admit to a somewhat allergic reaction to the word "belief".) At that time I heard this position called agnosticism, and I read the older definitions quoted here as supporting this definition. It's possible the terms have evolved so that now my position should be called "weak atheism", but I'm wondering whether that's an attempt to increase the number of people who can be called atheists.
I am quite aware (thank you \too/ much, Patrick) that Spock is a fictional character -- but there is something to be said even for the cartoonish approach the character was given to logic.
I have dabbled in a number of forms of discipline (juggling, hang gliding, fencing, and change ringing, inter alia) but never in religion; when I walked away from the church I was raised in I didn't look around for alternatives. And I do not "lack the courage of my convictions"; there are simply some things about which I refuse to have a conviction instead of a guess. I am trying to keep my temper about your dualism -- you may be as entitled to your opinions (even your rudeness) as I'm entitled to my lack of conviction -- but I think it's fair of me to observe that your experience is very limited.
Chip: I think it's fair of me to observe that your experience is very limited.
Could very well be. So tell me — in your life, outside the context of discussions of the difference between atheism and agnosticism, what, in your experience, is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? How do you think your life would be different if, instead of saying “I don't know but it seems unlikely,” you just said (as I do) “Nah, I don’t believe”?
I also believe in the world of experience, which is where I actually live, what with being a bag of protoplasm hooked up to the world via nerves that feed into a not entirely reliable neural network. Experiences are interesting, often valuable, but not measurable. Hopefully, most of my experiential world is congruent with the empirical world, but that will not always be the case.
If there is an invisible world, then everything I read and know about people's reports of it suggest that it exists in the world of experience, not the solid, measurable world.
Lydy: People keep making my head explode. It's getting tiresome.
Do you suppose my unreliable neural network has anything to do with my inability to feel faith? To believe?
MKK
Scott: A RASFF award is a very good thing indeed. Once upon a time there was a wonderful place called rec.arts.sf.fandom. A bunch of really smart, articulate, funny, people hung out there and talked about lots of interesting things. At some point someone invented the RASFF award for particularly smart, or funny, or enjoyable posts. Anyone who posted there could hand them out and people frequently garnished them with appropriate and amusing images. For instance, in this case, we might declare a Light Award (since both blogs have light/lite in the title) with atheists rampant and chickenshit clusters.
There is still a place called RASFF on Usenet, but I have visited it and it is not the same. I miss it very much.
MKK
Avram:
Or you might ask how someone's life is different if their belief is "I just don't know. I don't think it's something I'm competent to pronounce judgment on. I'm out of energy for analysis on the subject."
I don't see this as an intellectually dishonest position.
For that matter, how is your life different from an atheist's if you _do_ believe in the existence of God, or a sentient creator of the Universe?
I don't see that there are simple answers to any of those questions. Are you talking about the development of an ethical code, the capacity for acts of conscience, what you do with your Saturday or Sunday mornings, or what?
The only response to your question that I can come up with, for myself, is that during the times when I disbelieve in the existence of an underlying pattern of compassion in the universe, I feel sadder. During times when I feel an underlying compassionate force in the universe is trying to communicate with me, I'm more likely to seek out a religious or communal experience, which, in the past, has included going to synagogues, churches, and Grateful Dead concerts.
I don't have the same beliefs about the nature/existence of God and my relationship to Him/Her/It at all times. (Except that when I capitalize pronouns, I'm usually talking about something I believe is holy, whether it is in my own mind or outside of it.)
As far as judgments about right vs. wrong, and my own moral responsibility, I don't think belief or non-belief in a powerful, sentient pattern in the universe has affected my actions much one way or the other.
I don't know how typical or atypical this is. There are atheists and agnostics who participate in religious ceremonies, and theists who abstain from them. So what's the point of the question?
It sounds, to me, like you're trying to accuse agnostics of some failure of intellectual or ethical responsibility that I don't see.
I've gone over the agnostic/atheist weak/strong belief/disbelief topic on Usenet, oh, a time or two, and was a bit surprised (though I shouldn't have been) that even some neopagans have trouble with the terms.
(LINK1) (LINK2) (LINK3) (LINK4)
Besides "strong" atheism (positive assertion of gods' nonexistence), and "weak" atheism (nonassertion of gods' existence — which includes "strong" atheism as a subset), I argue for a third category, "godless" atheism (not having any god/s — which includes "weak" and "strong" atheism as subsets).
While the writer Kate Nepveu linked to, Austin Cline, suggests that "weak" atheism (in his wording, "not believing in any gods") is the broadest and most basic meaning of "atheism", I argue that "godless" atheism ("not worshipping any god/s) is not only a broader and more basic meaning of atheism, but also the original meaning of the word — from "a-theos", "without-god", "godless".
And I cite for one example... Christians... who, in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, were convicted of "atheism" toward the Emperor because they refused to worship him (or rather his genius or spirit), although they certainly knew that he existed. (That they had their own, different, god did not satisfy the legal requirement.)
Notice that factual existence, or belief in factual existence, was not the point. Worship, or the absence of it, was the point.
Now, though many may doubt that the entity worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims actually exists, there is general agreement that the Sun exists, that the Moon exists, that the Earth exists, and even that idols and Roman Emperors do or once did exist — and that these are or have been worshipped by people, which makes them the gods of those worshippers.
Thus at least some gods do or did actually exist — putting to rest both the "weak" and "strong" categories of atheism.
However, this does not prevent anyone from denying or disbelieving in specific other gods' actual existence, for instance the invisible intangible variety. Actual disproof is still possible: if someone claims that a particular god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, a good look at the world as it is provides sufficient disproof that the claim need not be taken seriously.
Furthermore, the mere existence of a god does not compel its worship. Again, Christians knew the Emperor existed, yet did not worship him even when that was required by law. The Sun exists, and has been the god of many, yet need not be yours.
"Godless" atheism is not a claim of fact (other than "I don't worship anything"), and therefore needs no proof.
First, he's a Who fan.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Just to make things even more complex, there's also a genuine use in long standing of "agnostic" of believing Christians who assert (with Lorenzo Valla, following Charles Williams) that they beleive in what the Church teaches, but that they believe, they do not know.
Thus the broad term covers fully orthodox Christians as well as those who disbelieve, but also assert that they do not know.
The two polarities, atheist/theist and gnostic/agnostic belong to different measurement scales; in my experience attempting to force them into alignment or to make them exclusive on the same scale leads at best to confusion.
Mary Kay wrote:
Scott: A RASFF award is a very good thing indeed.
Yay! In that case, thank you, Teresa.
The only mental juxtaposition I was coming up with was "Razzie" or Raspberry Award. Them's not so good.
I'm (shuffles feet, glances down nervously) not really a Usenet person; when I try to hunt down something on rec.something.somethingelse, I use Google Groups.
Fear my lameness.
Cheers,
SL
Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant, and will remain too ignorant, to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe?
Your above statement is illogical. And you misrepresent what I say. I do not maintain that we will forever remain unable to be logical atheists. I can't say that because I had to pawn my crystal ball to buy Who tickets in 1975. However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."
I maintain that we are too ignorant now to know if there is a god or if there isn't. Because of that ignorance, we can't logically call ourselves atheists. This simply isn't a difficult or controversial point and I don't understand the intensity of the reaction to my position, unless my actions are interpreted as attacking a belief system.
Ivor, you seem to have a problem with believing that your own usages are laws of the universe, which is pretty strange, really, since language
Incorrect. I have said that I am using the most common defintion, the most common usage, of the terms atheist and agnostic.
To Scott: I know it hurts when your ox has been gored. I've suffered the same fate many a time. Perhaps you will someday be able to learn from the experience without spasmodic ad homenem attacks.
To assert there is no god, we need no evidence whatsoever. It's an opinion. I had that opinion and called myself an atheist for decades. I looked out into the unfathomable complexity of the universe, saw the cold realities of existence, compared that to the behavior of modern day humans, and didn't see anything I could attribute to a god. It occurred to me one day, however, that to logically assert there is no god required me to base the assertion on enough evidence to provide an overwhelming case so that I can know I am right. I couldn't come up with said evidence because to me the universe was unfathomably complex. That forced me to conclude that I was in reality agnostic and not an atheist. It wasn't a BFD to me then then and it isn't a BFD to me now, although to read some of the sputtering inanity that is passing for debate here it is -- ready for this, Scott? -- logical to assume that is is most certainly a BFD to others.
Ivor, why can't you grasp the difference between "I know there is no God" and "I don't believe in God"? You seem to think that only the former is atheism, but... well, you're just wrong.
With that, I'll leave this discussion to others. My senior thesis is due in two weeks, and completing that is far more important than spending my time arguing with the willfully ignorant.
However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."
There are several models of the universe in existence. You are asserting that none of them are correct. I believe that you are saying that in order for a model of the universe to be correct, it must include a space for a metaphysical component. There is no evidence for the existence of such a component. A model that does not contain room for metaphysics is logical, an explanation that includes it is not logical, because it introduces factors which cannot be proven.
I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist. Remember that not proving a negative thing, one of the building blocks of logic? You, however, need to prove that the prevailing scientific model is incorrect or incomplete, and is so in some disprovable fashion. If a theory cannot be disproved, then it cannot be proved, either.
It occurred to me one day, however, that to logically assert there is no god required me to base the assertion on enough evidence to provide an overwhelming case so that I can know I am right.
That isn't logical or rational. What you are saying here is that you had an overwhelming, emotional need to know that you were right. That's cool with me. However, implying that it is illogical for other people to fail to have that emotional need is, well, illogical. Your argument quickly devolves into "How can we know anything?" which isn't a particularly useful or logical place. If nothing can be known, then nothing can be logical. If things can be known, then it is not irrational to decline to believe in things for which there is no proof.
To Scott: I know it hurts when your ox has been gored. I've suffered the same fate many a time. Perhaps you will someday be able to learn from the experience without spasmodic ad homenem attacks.
(Arthur, having chopped off both of the Black Knight's arms, proceeds to cut one of his legs off)
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come 'ere!
Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
Arthur: You're a loony.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
(Gee, I hit some wrong key and had to type this all over again anyway! Oh well, it's Monday.)
Interesting thread, even if the squabbling over definitions does get a bit wearisome after a while. Just for a change of pace, here's something from Mary Wollstonecraft's LETTERS WRITTEN DURING A SHORT RESIDENCE IN SWEDEN, NORWAY AND DENMARK (a wonderful book filled with pithy political observations on politics and war, as well as religion):
What, for example, has piety, under the heathen or christian system, been, but a blind faith in things contrary to the principles of reason? And could poor reason make considerable advances, when it was reckoned the highest degree of virtue to do violence to its dictates? Lutherans preaching reformation, have built a reputation for sanctity on the same foundation as the catholics; yet I do not perceive that a regular attendance on public worship, and their other observances, make them a whit more true in their affections, or honest in their private transactions. It seems, indeed, quite as easy to prevaricate with religious injunctions as human laws, when the exercise of their reason does not lead people to acquire principles for themselves to be the criterion of all those they receive from others. [Letter XIX]
Sure, she's stating the obvious, but she does it so nicely!
Yahweh the Storm God has way too many believers, and I don't care to be one of them.
Storm God? I think that's Zeus. We're only 2% of the population, so I'm not sure that's "way too many", but of course YMMV.
Ivor, why can't you grasp the difference between "I know there is no God" and "I don't believe in God"?
I'm unsure how much difference there truly is. Doesn't "belief" mean an acceptance of some truth? If you say you don't believe in the existence of a god, aren't you saying that the truth of the matter is that there is no god?
However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."
There are several models of the universe in existence. You are asserting that none of them are correct.
No, I am not. I am asserting that we don't know if any of them are correct, including any that include the existence or non-existence of god.
I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist.
It isn't a matter of proving a negative. It is a matter of having enough evidence to support your theory to the point that it is accepted as the most rational answer. My point is that we cannot compile enough evidence because at the moment we cannot know that lifeforms other than what we sense around us do or do not exist.
Not much more to be gained from this, I fear. When a person's belief system is perceived as being attacked, rational thought isn't the first response. That can only come later and only to those who seek it.
I've always liked the term "militant agnostic," as someone mentioned above. "I don't know and neither do you" are good words to live by, especially if you apply them to believers and non-believers alike.
When a person's belief system is perceived as being attacked, rational thought isn't the first response. That can only come later and only to those who seek it.
Well, keep looking! And let us know when you get there.
When a person's belief system is perceived as being attacked, rational thought isn't the first response. That can only come later and only to those who seek it.
Well, keep looking! And let us know when you get there.
Thanks, Dave. And good luck in high school.
Mythago --
Yahweh the Storm God/Jehovah of the Thunders is the Victorian war god, the fellow -- drawn mostly from Old Testament sources -- who encourages his followers to demonstrate the superiority of their culture (and Him) by going and stomping other cultures flat. Having a disturbing resurgence of late.
Ivor --
Most rational answer is not a scientific criteria. (And a darned good thing, too, or quantum electrodynamics would be in trouble.)
The criteria are greatest explanatory power and most parsimonious explanation.
Which in part means, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to explain.
But what about billions of people who have religious experiences?
evidence, in that sense, is required to be independent of the contents of any particular person's head -- which means independent of belief, quantifiable, and reproducible.
In that specific sense, there is no evidence to explain, despite extensive and dedicated searching by many millions of people.
Should you feel compelled to try to beat people up with the rules of a philosophical system inappropriate to the discussion, you could do well to understand it first.
I maintain that we are too ignorant now to know if there is a god or if there isn't. Because of that ignorance, we can't logically call ourselves atheists. This simply isn't a difficult or controversial point and I don't understand the intensity of the reaction to my position, unless my actions are interpreted as attacking a belief system.
If it's so simple and uncontroversial, why has it been decisively and politely refuted several times, and why has your only response to that refutation been to repeat your original thesis over and over as if it were a mantra, and to add gratuitous ad hominem remarks about how everyone who disagrees with you is just being over-emotional?
I have said that I am using the most common defintion, the most common usage, of the terms atheist and agnostic.
You can say it as often as you like. It's still not true.
Ivor: I have said that I am using the most common defintion, the most common usage, of the terms atheist and agnostic.
You're doing more than that; you're denying that any other definitions exist. Which is itself dishonest, since a great many English words have multiple meanings or shades of meaning.
(And I'm not convinced that you're actually correctly using the most common definitions, but that's another point.)
Scott: A rasseff award is a good thing. I was thnking of this in my pre-stirring reveries this morning (my mind, on associative free-ranging does some strange things, let me tell you), because I too thought there ought to be some equivalent here (and if there was some way to wear the one I earned, plain and unadorned, here, I might). I suggest calling it (in light of the venue, and the cause for it, i.e. brilliant writing; of one sort, or another) A dazzle.
Ivor: Thanks for playing, but as has been pointed out, you're not addressing the arguments anymore, and (though you don't seem to see this; beams and motes) are resorting to ad hominem (and the worst sort, sanctimonious belittlement) yourself.
The self-referential implications of worth (e.g. that your brilliant, even if unaccepted, words are goring people's oxen with the penetration of your logic) are just icing on the cake.
The fact of the matter is, as has been said elsewhere, and only your (IMO) lack of civility stirs me from the comfort of the sidelines, you have been responded to. Your use of malleable definition, imposition of an unmeetable standard (the proof of a negative) and then not only expecting people to accept your definition (we all do that, it's not a problem) but refusing to answer the arguments which show your position's untenability.
It is possible that you could persuade us you were right (wouldn't be easy, we are a stiff-necked and tenacious people here, but it's possible. I have seen almost all the people here admit to error) but beating the same drum, in the face of logical refutation, and tehn adding insults to it, well this may be a free-wheeling sort of salon/saloon (take your pick) and tolerant of a lot of crap, but that ain't gonna fly.
Terry
Thus spake IvorIf you mean her statement contains structural logical errors, the word is "fallacious." If you mean it uses incorrect data and/or fails to arrive at correct conclusions, "you are in error" would be appropriate. If you think you have been misunderstood, the polite response -- i.e., the one that doesn't unnecessarily imply intent -- would be "you have misunderstood me," or "perhaps I was unclear." If you say "your statement is illogical," and do not follow that with an explanation of where the statement's logic went astray, but instead register a more general disagreement with the statement's accuracy, I will not say that you've watched too much Star Trek; rather, I'll say that you've been too impressed by the Star Trek you've watched.(Quoting Lydy): Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant, and will remain too ignorant, to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe?Your above statement is illogical. And you misrepresent what I say.
I do not maintain that we will forever remain unable to be logical atheists. I can't say that because I had to pawn my crystal ball to buy Who tickets in 1975. However, this statement is logical: "Therefore, it is logical to say that humans are too ignorant to gather enough facts about our existence to build a correct model of the universe."Nope. Wrong. Sorry. No joy.I maintain that we are too ignorant now to know if there is a god or if there isn't. Because of that ignorance, we can't logically call ourselves atheists.
You began, way back up this thread, declaring that the only correct definition of "atheism" is yours. That assertion is arbitrary, not logical. You have ignored the many reference books that, if consulted, would tell you that not only is your preferred version not the sole sense of the word, it's not even the primary sense of the word. I won't call that illogical, since we're not testing the proposition that the quest for new knowledge should begin by taking existing knowledge into account; but it's definitely a basic procedural error. You have also ignored the primary evidence available in this discussion itself, where you've repeatedly seen it demonstrated that your definition of atheist is neither singular nor primary.
Now, what do you suppose Aristotle would have said about someone who proceeded that badly and ignored that much data?
Onward.
Your initial statement had other questionable aspects. You said that a system that didn't meet your standards of logic (in this case, atheism) should not be embraced by anyone serious about the study of religion. Now, the field of religious studies is old and wide and deep. How many of its scholars have had personal beliefs that satisfy your standards for logic? Very few, would be my estimate. Do you conclude, then, that all the rest have not been serious about the study of religion? And if this condition is meant to apply only to one inadequately logical belief, i.e. atheism, could you please explain why it does so in that case but not in others? One is naturally curious.
By the way, how serious are you about the study of such subjects? I don't see an acquaintance with them reflected in your language.
This simply isn't a difficult or controversial point --Don't you just wish. You're certainly having difficulty with it, and you're attracting a great deal of controversy.
If you mean that your definition and interpretation of the meaning of "atheist" are the established and default ones used by knowledgeable souls everywhere -- nice try, fella.
-- and I don't understand the intensity of the reaction to my position, unless my actions are interpreted as attacking a belief system.I don't understand your obliviousness concerning the nature of the feedback you're getting, unless you have reading comprehension problems. We aren't struggling to understand you. We understand you quite well. We just think your arguments blow chunks.
But you're not. I've got your authorities right here.(Quoting Lydy again): Ivor, you seem to have a problem with believing that your own usages are laws of the universe, which is pretty strange, really, since languageIncorrect. I have said that I am using the most common defintion, the most common usage, of the terms atheist and agnostic.
You have also just stumbled into a major error. If you admit that there are more common and less common definitions of "atheist", then it cannot be true that there is only one valid definition of it, which is the basis of your entire argument.
Game over. You lose.
To Scott: I know it hurts when your ox has been gored. I've suffered the same fate many a time. Perhaps you will someday be able to learn from the experience without spasmodic ad homenem attacks.Knock it off with the labored sarcasm. Scott Lynch is a better writer and thinker than you are, and he's about twenty times funnier. Your best chance of ever becoming that good is if you're in your teens right now.
To assert there is no god, we need no evidence whatsoever. It's an opinion. I had that opinion and called myself an atheist for decades.But alas, I fear you're not a teenager.
I looked out into the unfathomable complexity of the universe, saw the cold realities of existence, compared that to the behavior of modern day humans, and didn't see anything I could attribute to a god.Which proves exactly nothing. Given the setup you describe, you could have been looking at a universe full of evidences of god, only you were too thick to spot them.
It occurred to me one day, however, that to logically assert there is no god required me to base the assertion on enough evidence to provide an overwhelming case so that I can know I am right.Reading that, I know three things. First, I know that on the day you describe, you were in no danger of being wrestled to the ground and forcibly awarded a Macarthur Foundation grant. Second, I know that you're unfamiliar with several disciplines' worth of writing on this subject. Third, I know that you don't know squat about basic logic, because that's a negative proof.
The proposition that god exists is notoriously resistant to positive proof. You've declared that no one can be an atheist who isn't in possession of the far more elusive negative proof that he doesn't exist. Under your definition, no one can ever be an atheist.
The word nevertheless gets used. Which one's wrong -- you, or the English language? I know which way I'm betting.
Second, I couldn't come up with said evidence because to me the universe was unfathomably complex.I've got a really simple explanation that'll cover that one. William of Ockham would approve.
That forced me to conclude that I was in reality agnostic and not an atheist. It wasn't a BFD to me then then and it isn't a BFD to me now,Bet me.
although to read some of the sputtering inanity that is passing for debate here it is -- ready for this, Scott? -- logical to assume that is is most certainly a BFD to others.Tsk. Finding out you have an indefensible argument is never an excuse for getting surly.
Graydon, to come in really late here, I come from a Christian tradition that specifically teaches that that is not the meaning of the phrase "holy catholic church." We're supposed to recognize churches of other denominations and in other places as part of the same Body of Christ with us. That's what it's about from our perspective. Not that everybody's a Christian and it only remains to be seen which of us are good Christians and which bad. (Sadly, some of my relatives do seem to believe that. But I don't think that clause of the Creed is responsible.)
We often substitute a single word so that it's "holy Christian church" instead, just to be a little clearer about what it is that we're saying. That has its own interpretation problems, of course. Language. Pesky stuff.
I've been refraining from comment on this thread and its sibling because I'm not sure I can stop myself from going on at unreasonable length with experience and counterexperience. Suffice it to say that I'm sick of being the first or only "decent/good" Christian people meet. I'm sick of having them express shock that someone they like or often agree with follows that particular storyteller. I don't blame them for being surprised, considering how many jerk Christians there are -- but then, there are plenty of jerks in every religious and unreligious group. One thing for which we do not lack is jerks. And I'm always happy to hear folks like Patrick calling for fewer of them on any side of an issue.
Peculiarly, I've just finished posting an online edition of a Victorian satire directed largely at early incarnations of some of these issues. (Were the 1870s the first time they could openly be discussed in English?) The author, a rather callow conservative, pushes for an equivalence, not just of atheism with agnosticism, but of atheism with any liberalization of orthodoxy:
The New Republic by W. H. Mallock
To Patrick's very sensible words, I'd only add what EverythingsRuined has suggested: It seems to me that, although we atheist liberals do some very nice talking, the first and most tenacious folks to go out there and actually do dangerous dirty work for our shared humanist causes are often the religious liberals. (My impulse is to say "are usually" instead, but I don't want to have to provide stats.)
In this regard, I've also envied the organizational energies of bad old slavish-to-the-Party-line Communists, whose disbelief is merely one aspect of a larger sustaining faith -- not differing, to my eyes, from a Muslim's disbelief in Jesus Christ as a personal savior.
There may be something innately individuating about atheism (not that this means we have a choice about it). It's hard to build a self-sacrificing community around lack of belief in something that seems self-evidently false. "Make sense to you?" "Nope." "Me either." "OK, we're done." Many times when I hear people bemoan their loss of faith, it seems that they're also bemoaning a loss of community. (Similarly, when people go through agonies over their self-defined sexual orientation, simple quality or quantity of orgasms rarely seems the chief problem on their mind.)
To Scott: I know it hurts when your ox has been gored. I've suffered the same fate many a time. Perhaps you will someday be able to learn from the experience without spasmodic ad homenem attacks.
Whoever uses the phrase "ad hominem attacks" in a debate, especially online, will lose. If the person can't even spell it correctly, they've already lost. Truism of the Internet #12.
Avram: So tell me — in your life, outside the context of discussions of the difference between atheism and agnosticism, what, in your experience, is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
I thought I'd made that clear; as I understood the term, atheism was the certainty that there were no gods, while agnosticism is an admitted uncertainty. Posts here suggest that this definition is not uncommon.
How do you think your life would be different if, instead of saying “I don't know but it seems unlikely,” you just said (as I do) “Nah, I don’t believe”?
As I also said, I have something approaching an allergy to the word "believe"; I would be \personally/ unsatisfied about myself making that declaration. (Not that such dissatisfaction is likely to lead to an effort to change, any more than I've worked on my fading voice or my sometimes curmudgeonly nature -- but it would be an irritant.)
It seems to me that, although we atheist liberals do some very nice talking, the first and most tenacious folks to go out there and actually do dangerous dirty work for our shared humanist causes are often the religious liberals. (My impulse is to say "are usually" instead, but I don't want to have to provide stats.)
Like you say, you don't have stats, so don't suggest it. This is a common claim, but it's like the "there are no atheists in foxholes" cliche -- it just isn't necessarily true. I know atheists who do social and community and charity work, and those kinds of people may be just as common among atheists as they are among theists. The thing is, most atheists don't identify themselves by their lack of religious beliefs, so their work isn't attributed to a specific organization. And there are relatively fewer atheists around in general, so they aren't as visible.
The claim also feeds into the all-too-common stereotype of atheists, that we're all bleak, cynical, amoral people who are selfish and hateful.
I thought I'd made that clear; as I understood the term, atheism was the certainty that there were no gods, while agnosticism is an admitted uncertainty. Posts here suggest that this definition is not uncommon.
On the contrary, posts here have demonstrated that it's at least uncommon enough that several dictionaries flatly contradict it.
The difference between "belief" and "certainty" is pretty straightforward. There are many things I believe (O.J. killed his wife, invading Iraq was a bad idea, God doesn't exist), and very few of which I'm certain (1 + 1 = 2 under the normal axioms of arithmetic).
You don't have to be certain that the Iraq war was a bad idea to be a Iraq dove, and you don't need to be certain that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. Belief is sufficient in either case.
Ivor seems to think that certainty is required for belief. Not only can he not prove this (and therefore not believe it himself, by his own standards), but since certainty is very hard to come by, this requirement is tantamount to nihilism. Watch your toes around him.
I don't think you're as confused as he is, but I do think you're over-eager to claim moderate atheists for agnosticism.
PZ: You're right. My impulse said more about me than it did about anyone else. Should've cut that parenthesis.
Mris --
Some of my close friends are that sort of Christian, people whose to whose kids I'm an honorary uncle. It's not my belief that the absolutists are the majority, or the just run, or any such representative thing about Christianity other than the problem.
Yahweh the Storm God/Jehovah of the Thunders is the Victorian war god
The Victorians never called him YHWH, as I recall, thought they did mistranslierate his name as Jehovah. Lord of Hosts, and some strains of the Hebrew Bible (you didn't really believe all that stuff about it being one book, did you?) are militaristic. Some aren't. I don't know many Storm God followers these days, unless you mean the Asatru.
Let's use the right side of the brain when considering faith.
I don't vote for republicans, i sometimes doubt the existence of the God of the new testement, but... I pray to say Hi, to connect with everything, to say thanks for the existence of everything.
I want to put a psychological aspect on this discussion. I reference the way Atheist Camille Paglia sees Religion, something like Norman O Brown as well. The way I see it is that Religion is a record of human wondering with waking dreams about the big questions, and the big answers. My religion is one of art, of creativity, of imagination... art as redemption.. and so my personal version of Religion sees Christianity as itself a creation of human imagination. And this perspective is not intended to hurt the feelings of literalist republican christians who are probably not involved in this discussion, it is an enriched appreciation of the power of stories, dreams, art, images in humanity's search for sources, to cross time with the power of imagination.
Let me too say that I am glad we are having this particular debate, and that though entirely publicly accessable it doesn't seem to attract those politically right of center.
But let me suggest we use the right side of the brain when considering our faith!
Getting back to the original point here, for a moment, one of the reasons why many progressives get testy around religion is that they are engaged in a constant struggle with the faiths that abandoned them, but still witter away in the back of their heads. Patrick is right to mention the anger of the abused, but one does not have to be have been abused to be upset by organized religion, while endlessly drawn back to it.
I was a cradle Catholic, and had an intense active faith until my second year at Oxford - my first political awakening into anarcho-pacifism specifically derived from my beliefs. And for as long as faith was a factor in my life, I could make a distinction between the Catholic Church of which I was a member and the Actually Existing Catholic Church which ran things. I could pray that Pope Paul would be guided by the Holy Spirit to a better understanding of e.g infalliblity (that heretical though Council-based belief which had more to do with the personal insecurities of Pio Nono than with anything in scripture) or oppositions to contraception (that doctrine which had more to do with Pio Nono's corrupt dealings with a birth-rate obsessed French republicanism than ditto). I even prayed regularly for Cardinal Ratzinger, whose obsession with the consistency of doctrine even then presented itself to me as a stumbling block for the Church's future.
My loss of faith had little to do with the intellectual unsustainability of these views, let alone with their historical irrelevance, though I do note these. It had to do, quite simply, with waking up one morning and ceasing to feel that communication with the spiritual realm, and other believers, which had sustained me for the previous few years. I had never known what people meant by losing faith, and almost overnight I found out.
This brought me face to face with a lot of issues I had deferred. I had been quite badly treated - no, not sexual abuse, or even serious physical abuse, just being picked on and mildly victimized - by the monk headmaster of my secondary school in London, and I had offered this up as a mortification rather than ever getting annoyed enough to complain. I had signally failed to deal with my sexuality and gender issues, to the point of developing a rich fantasy life involving a romanticism destructive of me and those around me. This habit of repressing legitimate anger and desire was closely connected with my Catholicism and once I no longer had faith to reassure me, prayer looked like a pretty dodgy safety valve.
And yet, I remain a cradle Catholic, no matter how anticlerical and agnostic I have become. The words of the Latin Mass are imprinted in me; at times of stress like planes in storms I find I have been saying my rosary without even noticing it. I retain a certain train spotter's interest in ecclesiastical politics and in canonizations and in new decrees about the Mass. Complete strangers sometimes spot me as a cradle Catholic thirty years after I left the church - Tim and Serena Powers knew within five minutes, just because of verbal habits.
The Gospels have a particular place in my pantheon of wisdom literature because they are so familiar to me. And because they seem no less wise than the bits of the Taoist texts that have at times appealed to me, and more in the world of practical dealings with others than much of what is best in Buddhism. The parables and epigrams attributed to Christ are often wise whether or not you believe that he was God Incarnate.
They also have comparatively little to do with the dark and hateful sayings of many of those who claim or have claimed to be his followers and to have divine sanction for their hate. Hate which is often directed specifically at groups to which I belong.
I still have an affection for the God of my parents and grandparents, for the world of religious practice I grew up in and which still moves me at the family funerals which are my only remaining contact with it. I know that many believers and ministers of religion are good and holy men.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who claim to be Christians, including the heads of many denominations, who either want me in jail or dead or in Hell or at least deprived of many crucial civil rights. Institutional sexism and homophobia is hard to reconcile with the loving-kindness that all of this is supposed to be about.
What makes it worse is that I was sufficiently trained in apologetics when young to know the pat answers. Oh they do it because they hate the sin and not the sinner, or because it is necessary to the Church's mission that it not change, or because it is important not to give scandal to third world people who might drift to evangelical protestantism or Islam.
And here's the thing. If I am not for myself, who am I for? I will not serve in a belief system that despises me, and the hooks it still has in my soul are such that I need to distance myself from it all the time.
I don't know whether or not I believe and trust in a god or gods - I know that I no longer connect my occasional experiences of the numinous with such belief or trust. Pantheism has rarely killed anybody, so you can maybe call me a pantheist because I do have a sense of the holy in nature and art and just the glorious detail of the mundane.
I have had the worrying experience of conversations with the dead, often in dreams, in which they told me small details that proved to have been objectively true and which I could not possibly have known, though I might have guessed. I don't necessarily believe in the objective validity of these experiences, but I have to accept them, and the extent to which they are commonplace among my acquaintance, as a reason no longer to rest in the materialism to which for a while I was drawn. If such experiences were valid, though, the friends in them talked of the numinous, and of an afterlife of exploration and contemplation and enjoyment, not of the Four Last Things in which I was brought up.
I mention this, because this is the closest I have come to a renewal of faith, and it is nothing like the faith in which I was reared and whose intellectual structure and art I still respect.
And from an agnostic standpoint, belief in survival after death is even more irrational than belief in God. So colour me confused, because I really don't want to trade in Catholicism for Paganism - the noise, the people. And I no longer have a home in standard liberal agnosticism any more than in the church of my parents.
Like a lot of people, I am confused and hurt and angry. And if at times I make remarks that treat on other people's toes of faith, let me apologize pre-emptively.
Roz, I can't recall being troubled by any remarks you've ever made about religion, perhaps because no one could say you haven't thought about it or don't know what you're talking about.
After all my years of distancing myself from the religion I was raised in, it was surprising to gradually realize that I was a believer. What you call that sense of communication -- a good way to describe it, or at any rate a way that's a close match with my own experience -- has sustained me, off and on, for as long as I can remember.
The instantiated church is in some parts wonderful and in other parts hard to take. As I said to Lydy and Claire when the scandals blew up, at least no one can ever call me an opportunist.
Infallibility. Never had the slightest doubt about it; by which I mean, I've always thought it was nonsense. I now can't find the link I used to have to a lovely new icon of the Dormition, commissioned by a Jesuit organization in the Midwest. And I'm truly glad I don't have to explain the connection there, because I have to get off to work now, and don't have time to do anything like that much typing.
Teresa: that looks like: nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/002878.html#002878
I>July 24, 2003
Dueling icons
... The painting is a Dormition of the Mother of God ( http://www.trinitystores.com/catalog/catalog.php4?image=305 ), and was commissioned ( http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/dorm.html ) by the Jesuit magazine America.
Hope your day was fruitful.
Oops :# Don't think code glitch above is causing problems.
Is this a nasty time of year? Not only Hitler's birthday, but Gallipoli starts, Chernobyl incident, Port Arthur massacre, Fall of Saigon. Maybe most times are if you pick out the bad bits of history. After all, we're also celebrating the centenary of the first ever national Labour Party government worldwide.
Did quite a bit of relatively heavy work over the Anzac Day long weekend - feels good seeing results, but body hurts. Then went to work today on too little rest. Am not safe in charge of keyboard, so I'm heading off now.
Teresa and Roz, I experience that same communication and connectedness -- sometimes seemingly containing information that shouldn't be there, by rational standards -- that I can't explain. I've come to discover after years of rejection of my religion of origin that I'm some kind of believer, too. I can't say of what, exactly. But I'm not sure I need to. I don't know what that makes me.
There's this thing called process theology that doesn't try to prescribe, but merely to define, the process of the divine in human affairs.
For me, God is that process by which evil is turned to good. By which a competitive species of ape has somehow stumbled across empathy and ethics. By which the universe seems, sometimes, for no particular reason, to bend to the good.
-l.
Ah, but it could be worse Epacris -- my birthday was a week and a half ago.
(It is up to the reader to decide if this means that it was worse on the 15th or if that date improves the rest of the month. I'm still not sure, myself.)
Tim: How do you connect your ... vigorous ... response to the OED definition previously posted?
I think you and I are using different shades of the word "believe". If I had to pick a word I'd call most of your "beliefs" opinions; e.g., how disturbed would you be if clear evidence turned up that O.J. didn't kill his wife? I don't think that's likely either, but I do not have the emotional commitment to said opinion that I too often find attached to "believe". Similarly, I have no emotional commitment to what you call yourself, and if it makes you happier to call me an atheist you are free to do so -- bearing in mind Lincoln's adage about dogs' tails and legs.
Hrmn... Can of worms.
After reflection (in the form of a morbid curiosity, and research for personal reasons) I've come to the conclusion that 1: OJ didn't do it, or 2: he had accomplicies.
The evidence is pretty clear, from the forensics, and the autopsies, that at least two people had to be present at the scene.
I must confess to a local bias... Being a long time resident of L.A., I don't have as much faith in them as I otherwise might. The original opinion I had was (and when this all happened I was at a remove, studying Russian in Monterey)... "They didn't need to frame him, he did it."
Now I'm not so sure.
On the other hand, I didn't have any huge stake in the issue, and the DA's office did. They presented it as a solo killing, and so they have left it as, "Open, but shut."
The official position is the acquittal makes it pointless to investigate, because we already know who did it, and can't go after him again.
The evidence pointing to a second party (and some to other motives, like the similar killings in the same area, in the years prior) are ignored, because it compromises the party line.
Yes, that sounds conspiracy theorish, but I tend to see it more as emotional inertia. One sees the same thing in any beauracracy.
Terry
Chip: I do not have the emotional commitment to said opinion that I too often find attached to "believe".
I believe you may be overstating the degree to which "believe" necessarily implies an emotional commitment.
Tim: How do you connect your ... vigorous ... response to the OED definition previously posted?
The OED didn't mention "certainty." "Denies or disbelieves," it said. Disbelief, according to my less-prestigious but handy-at-work dictionary, can be limited to "withholding belief." It's nothing like certainty.
I think you and I are using different shades of the word "believe".
Maybe, but my objection was to your use of the word "certainty," which doesn't have a lot of shades.
how disturbed would you be if clear evidence turned up that O.J. didn't kill his wife?
Not very, but I wouldn't be particularly disturbed to find out that (most versions of) God existed either. Unless he stuck me in hell, of course. Fortunately, my disbelief in eternal damnation is a lot stronger than my disbelief in God.
Similarly, I have no emotional commitment to what you call yourself,
Oddly enough, I do, and I don't care for my creed being redefined into something I find unattractive. Having readThe Ascent of Man at a tender age, I associate certainty with arrogance and the abuse of power. Having read Popper much later, I understand even better why certainty is a dangerous chimera.
and if it makes you happier to call me an atheist you are free to do so
I don't want to do that at all. It wouldn't even occur to me.
Sorry if I'm too "... vigorous ...", but I usually post from work in haste. I haven't meant anything I've said as an attack.
Teresa wrote:
Infallibility. Never had the slightest doubt about it; by which I mean, I've always thought it was nonsense.
That puzzles me a lot. I grew up a Baptist, but when I moved away from my parents' house I knew I should figure out where I really belonged; in some kind of Christian church, but not in a fundamentalist Baptist church, I figured.
When I was studing different churches' teachings - toward the end of the period, mainly studying the Catholic church - there were a lot of particular Catholic teachings that made more sense the more I studied them. Near the end of that time, I found I believed too many Catholic ideas to ever be comfortable in a Protestant church again. But I could not actually join the Catholic Church until I got over the problem I had with the idea of infallibity. I realized that even if I agreed with Catholics more than with Protestants on most of the issues that divide us, I still could not actually be a Catholic unless I actually believe all that the Church teaches. So it took awhile longer before I could understand and believe in the infallibility of the Church.
After I got past the usual misunderstandings (confusing infallibility with impeccability, misunderstanding the scope of infallibility, or how it's supposed to actually work) I was thinking, for several weeks if I recall correctly, "That would be cool if it were true, but can I be sure it's true?" Only after I could accept that could I honestly present myself at the nearest Catholic church as a convert and start going through RCIA.
Jim Henry writes: "I realized that even if I agreed with Catholics more than with Protestants on most of the issues that divide us, I still could not actually be a Catholic unless I actually believe all that the Church teaches."
This is not a thought which comes naturally to people born and raised RC. If the Hierarchy are promoting some new idiocy (or, more often, some old idiocy resurrected,) we are more likely to ask "Why is the hierarchy being so wrongheaded about this stupid infallibility doctrine?".
The Hierarchy is not the Church.
Mind you, I'm not even part of the Church these days, but I remember my father (who is) following the career of Hans Kung with interest, back when I was.
In my youth, when I was considering taking orders the issue of infallibilty (in re the bull, Ex Cathedra) was a trial. That, as a sticking point, is no small part of why I didn't actively pursue life as a Jesuit.
Having been reared in the Church, I don't have to accept all her foibles, to think of myself as a member of the whole, although I do confess that I've been attending Episcopal masses, more often than not, when I need the ritual of the Mass.
In the desert, oddly, the quirks of the present Mass were not a problem, this may be diocesan, and the military Mass may not be as, wishy-washy as the services in my neck of the woods.
To be honest, if the Church were to abandon Ex Cathedra, I might be able to return to a more devout lifestyle, but until then... well I live at the fringes.
Terry
My issue with infallibility is not merely that it is nonsense, which it is, nor that it was imposed as doctrine, as opposed to sentimental belief, by a thoroughly corrupt process of bribes and threats to the members of the Council that declared it.
It is that it corrodes the intellectual framework of much of the rest of Catholic belief by making it dependent, not on logic or scripture, but on the asserted claim of the Pontiff.
Specifically, there is the problem of creeping infallibility - the doctrine as stated by Vatican I is quite limited ( I don't have the wording in front of me, but it is something like ' important matters of faith and morals, in accordance with scripture, the teachings of the Fathers and previous Councils of the Church ') and yet as Teresa points out one of its major uses was to declare as dogma a lot of ideas about the nature of the Mother of Christ which are hardly essential to anyone.
The present Pope has not, as yet, attached infallibility to what appear to be his own personal beliefs about the co-intercessorship of Mary, but he has done so by implication to a lot of other issues both of belief and practice.
Creeping infallibility is one of the issues that concerns me about the doctrine and the other, as I say, is the tendency under the influence of Ratzinger to make the magisterium of the Church a matter of 'because I say so'.
In one of his books - again, not to hand - Ratzinger places both sides of the debate about the ensoulment of the foetus in the balance, paying due attention to what Aquinas said. He then argues, and this is a point on his side, that given that there is uncertainty on this issue, the Church has a humane duty to argue for the ensoulment at conception.
He then goes on to argue that in any case the authority of the church depends on consistency and the fact that in this instance that choice is consistent with what he has claimed as the humane option.
This looks like both a knock-down argument for one of the underpinnings of the opposition to abortion and for Infallibility. In fact, of course, it is a piece of rhetoric and nothing of the kind. If the church actually believed in ensoulment at conception, it would have developed rituals and sacraments on that basis in the way that some sects of Japanese Buddhism have. If uncertainties were always to be resolved on the humane side, the Church would take a far stronger position on war and hunger, and be far less dogmatic about homosexuality.
In the specific instance of ensoulment, the Father of the Church who actually discussed it, Aquinas, took a position diametrically opposed to the Church's current one. His view of course depends on outmoded Aristotelian science and cannot be held - yet the current doctrine is just as incoherent in its use of science.
Where the Ratzinger's arguments do depend on Aquinas is in their tendency to complete circularity. He knows where he wants to get and constantly shades his argument to ensure he gets there.
What he is actually saying is that a position with real human costs can be justified in terms of the benefits derived from the doctrine of infallibility. We are entitled to believe otherwise.
I go into this much detail on a fine point, because it relates to the intellectual corruption recognition of which, even before I lost my faith, was eroding my capacity to be a member of the actually existing Roman Catholic faith.
And yet, and yet, I miss that sense of connection one got from attending mass and receiving the Eucharist in the companionship of all believers past and present. I did specifically believe in the doctrine of particpation by doing so in the benefits of Christ's sacrifice - not hard to be an SF fan if you've been a Catholic, because you get to wrap your head around some seriously woo! concepts at an early age.
One of the things I hate most about the bureaucrats of the church is that they use refusal of that communion on a regular basis to police people's actions. Some years ago, it was announced that all transexuals are automatically excommunicate - so I can't go back even if I wanted to. The effective excommunication of pro-Choice Catholic politicians is not only a disgraceful intervention in the democratic process; it is a piece of refined malice in terms of what these people are supposed actually to believe. If he who says to his brother 'Thou Fool' is in danger of the judgement, how much more so those who assert their authority by this sort of blackmail?
And there we have the paradox. I am still fascinated by the intellectual process I was taught by the Benedictines and the Jesuits. I am a child of the Church even in the mode of my separation from it.
Can progressives craft a message that appeals to Christians and other faith-based voters? Check out my imaginary Kerry speech on faith-based liberalism at:
http://worldonfire.typepad.com/world_on_fire/2004/04/god_on_our_side.html
Niall wrote:
This is not a thought which comes naturally to people born and raised RC.
I am aware that there are a lot of cradle Catholics who disagree with some subset of the Church's teaching, yet don't leave the Church because there is nowhere else that looks more attractive. This sort of makes sense (psychologically, if not logically). But I believe Teresa is the first adult convert I've met who thinks the same way. Thus, I expressed surprise and puzzlement.
Roz Kaveney wrote:
...by a thoroughly corrupt process of bribes and threats to the members of the Council that declared it.
What evidence do you have of this? I would like to see it.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth - but if we belive this process of being led into truth does not occur under specific objectively ascertainable circumstances, we are Protestants (the invididual believer interpreting the Bible more or less on his own, or each congregation interpreting the Bible independently... this is where I grew up). Catholics have long believed that one of these objectively ascertainable circumstances was in a validly convened ecumenical council. Since the first Vatican Council declared that under specific circumstances (ex cathedra definitions of doctrine on faith and morals) the pope is also infallible ("led into all truth"), the latter belief seems to me to be a corollary of the first - unless one thinks that the first Vatican Council was not a valid ecumenical council. Is that what you think, based on the evidence you have heard of bribery, threats, etc?
The Holy Spirit prevents the Church - specifically, bishops in ecumenical councils and popes - from dogmatically declaring anything as true, which is actually false. He doesn't prevent them from declaring truth in a muddled or ambiguous way, on an injudicious occasion, or even from bad motives. (That's not to say he doesn't help them to declare truths clearly, at the right time, and from good motives when they cooperate with his grace - but he respects our free will and doesn't force us to do things or refrain from doing things, except in limited circumstances as mentioned above.)
Specifically, there is the problem of creeping infallibility...
There are people who interpret the words of Vatican I more broadly than they were meant, and assume some papal utterances are infallible which, under the circumstances they were given, are not. For instance, I recently heard someone say that the Pope's recommendation against invading Iraq was an infallible declaration. But it isn't, because he wasn't speaking to the whole church, much less defining a matter faith or morals. That's not to say he was wrong - he was probably right. But he was not infallible on that occasion.
John Henry Newman disagreed with the bishops and pope on some timing issues - if I recall correctly, he thought some of the Marian definitions, and the definition of papal infallibility, were inopportune though of course true. Just because something is true doesn't mean it is wise to declare it.
One of the things I hate most about the bureaucrats of the church is that they use refusal of that communion on a regular basis to police people's actions.
Do you disagree with this on principle, or only when you disagree with the bishops about the particular reason they are refusing someone communion? For instance, would you say the same about the bishops of Louisiana threatening excommunication of certain pro-segregation politicians in the early 1960s? Are there any circumstances in which you would think it justified to refuse communion?
Some years ago, it was announced that all transexuals are automatically excommunicate...
I tried to find the document, but couldn't. Google search for "excommunication transsexual Catholic" turned up nothing relevant in the first several pages. (I found some references to transsexuals being barred from ordination, but nothing about a general excommunication. The exclusion from ordination or from religious orders would be a special case of the general rules that exclude people with psychological problems, or those who have had voluntary sterilization surgery.) Do you know what/when it was?
Anyway, excommunication does not mean that you "can't go back even if [you] wanted to" - it means "we want you to come back, but your actions declare that you've left, de facto, and we have to make that obvious in case you hadn't noticed. We hope you will come back, but you have to repent, and publicly." It is a special case of the general rule that one shouldn't receive communion after committing mortal sin until one has first gone to confession. But when the sin is public (for instance, advocating unlimited abortion) the injury to unity is public, and the restoration of unity needs to be public as well. So returning after excommunication is a little more involved than just going to confession (though that's part of it, and the details of what is said in confession are secret as usual).
Jim: "But when the sin is public (for instance, advocating unlimited abortion)"...
Um, is there any distinction between "advocating unlimited abortion" and stating that because people with good intentions disagree, the government should leave the question up to individuals' consciences in most cases? If not, than what about politicians who "advocate unlimited idolatry" (that is, refuse to pass laws banning idolatry)? Feel free to replace idolatry with any other currently legal sin (is divorce a sin? masturbation? gluttony?). Is seperation of church and state a public sin answerable by excommunication?
I realize that what makes abortion particularly difficult is that one side thinks there are two "individuals" involved, and the other side thinks there may only be one. Personally, I'm somewhat of a gradualist on the question; I don't consider a fertilized egg any more of a person than an unfertilized egg, but an unborn baby at say 8 months post-conception is definitely a person, and I think there's a gray area in the middle where it would be hard to be certain.
Roz, paraphrasing Ratzinger: "given that there is uncertainty on this issue [foetal ensoulment], the Church has a humane duty to argue for the ensoulment at conception." Well, they do if there is no humane cost to such an argument. However, what about "medically necessary" abortions? If the choice is between aborting a foetus which may have a soul, or through inaction killing a woman who does have a soul, how is the latter "a humane duty"?
I'd just like to say that I advocate unlimited idolatry and masturbation.
I have had the worrying experience of conversations with the dead, often in dreams, in which they told me small details that proved to have been objectively true and which I could not possibly have known, though I might have guessed. I don't necessarily believe in the objective validity of these experiences, but I have to accept them, and the extent to which they are commonplace among my acquaintance, as a reason no longer to rest in the materialism to which for a while I was drawn. If such experiences were valid, though, the friends in them talked of the numinous, and of an afterlife of exploration and contemplation and enjoyment, not of the Four Last Things in which I was brought up.
Nicely put, Roz. I've had the ocasional numinous experience myself and continue to puzzle over the meaning and mechanisms of these sorts of phenomena. Mostly, I just refuse to decide on one explanation or another. I just accept that something happened, something for which we humans have, as yet, little understanding and no real frame of reference to go about understanding these experiences, without resorting to metaphor and fairy tales, which do more to explain away then enlighten, and usually do more to prop up some cherished cosmology or another.
All in all, it's a curious cosmos we live in. I still maintain, however, my 90% certainty that there is no God. However many dead ancestors I talk to in my dreams or rippling black shapes I see in the woods, none of these things require strings to be pulled upon from on high. That reduces the universe to a bad science fiction movie, painting a portrait of God as Ed Wood rather than some wooly chinned prude with a lightning-bolt disposition. (Not that I’m sugesting Roz or anyone here actually has sugested such a portrait; I’m chugging along under my own steam here).
Of course, this means I have to keep looking for answers when something unusual happens, instead of just latching on to the first convenient fairy tale that happens by. But I do so like to search...
I'd just like to say that I advocate unlimited idolatry and masturbation.
What, at the same time?
Dan: to the extent possible, yes. Though idolatry can also be practiced simultaneously with homosexuality, if you do it right. And pick a truly worthy partner.
Jeremy:
My apologies for the excessively elliptic phrase "advocating unlimited abortion". What about: "proposing that the state should not protect the rights a particular class of people because anyway they are subhuman and deserve no protection". Is that clearer? Unborn babies are probably the most typical class that some people consider subhuman nowadays, but there have been others in the past. If unborn babies are human, then the state must protect their rights the same as other people's, and if it doesn't, it isn't doing its job.
Re: medically necessary abortions - yes, a necessary evil. But in current court-made law, the "medically necessary" clause seems to be a wide-open loophole. "Medical necessity" is stretched by a legal fiction to cover any circumstance that may cause emotional distress (e.g. pregnancy).
Roz:
This recent post by Secret Agent Man says some sensible things about the rules for receiving communion, and quotes several American bishops on the topic. I don't agree with everything he says, or with his overall sarcastic tone, but especially toward the end of the post I linked he makes a lot of sense.
Some of the later posts in this thread seem to be assuming that abortions are necessary only in cases of carelessness or for the mother's health. As some people know to their very great cost, it is entirely possible to become pregnant while using contraception. What, then, is the humane approach? Though I suppose using contraception takes it out of the reach of the Catholic Church, ahem.
MKK
Jim: Unborn babies are probably the most typical class that some people consider subhuman nowadays
Oh, I dunno. I'd say far more cows are killed in a typical year in America than "unborn babies".
And what about fictional people? Who speaks up for their rights? How many fictional lives are snuffed out in one of those SF blockbusters full of planet-killer bombs?
(I don't believe we're getting into this argument, too, right after the atheism/agnosticism one. What next, Mac-vs-Windows? Was Heinlein a fascist? Was Ayn Rand an Emacs macro, and would her books have been better if they'd been written by vi?)
Not to mention Mingus vs. Coltrane.
But the rights of fictional people HAVE been addressed, and recently. The government wanted to prosecute some guy for possessing digitally simulated kid-porn. Have to keep those little electrons from being exploited by unscrupulous adults, you know.
When we moved back to Albuquerque, we started attending the local UU church. For those who aren't familiar with Unitarian Universalists, we're a congregation without a creed -- but rather, with a set of principles we all agree upon. These include, e.g., an affirmation of the inherent dignity and worth of each person, and the right of each person to come to their own understanding of what the nature of the divine in their life is -- whether it be a belief in a supernatural force, the power of nature, or the ultimate capability of humans to be more than we are.
There are many different belief systems among us UUs -- there are atheists and agnostics, liberal Christians, Pagans, Buddhists, and who knows who-all, who sit next to each other in the pews each Sunday.
It's a struggle to share a church community with people with deep convictions that run counter your own, but somehow the center holds. It's a mutual conviction that somehow we must find a way to live in harmony with those holding other beliefs.
It helps that our minister, Christine Robinson, is a truly amazing thinker and speaker, who weaves this ideaspace with room for us all. She has been instrumental in transforming my thinking on faith, religion, and and social justice. Somehow she manages to speak for all of us, one way or another, no matter what we believe.
Reading her words is not the same as hearing her speak, but those who want a taste of how UU congregations manage to bring atheists, Christians, and others together in a liberal, socially active community (albeit not without a few interesting collisions), can click on my webpage link.
-l.
And, if folks will forgive me, Christine's thoughts on abortion, since the subject's been raised. Click on my name.
-l.
Jim,
1) The excommunication of trans people was announced in Osservatore Romano some years ago - I cannot remember which particular part of the Church bureaucracy had decided upon it.
2) Most accounts of Vatican I - both at the time and since, see Acton and the UK diplomats - agree that dodgy pressure was put on eg the French cardinals to conform. I recently read a forthcoming book - David Kertzer's Prisoner of the Vatican - which mentions it in passing while concentrating on the extent to which Pio Nono wanted Infallibility as a consolation for losing the Papal States.
3) I take the point about the occasions on which the power of excommunication has been used for progressive causes - and yes, I find it iffy even there. However, since it has been far more common on the other side of things, I don't have much trouble in doing so.
4) Specifically, that which would be demanded of me by way of repentance would be a total reconstruction of an identity which it has taken me most of my adult life to come to terms with. I object to this as a matter of conscientious principle - in this respect ' I will not serve'.
But this has human costs - I attended my father's requiem mass and felt unable to read a lesson, or speak, and my sister - who has become an Anglican for complex reasons of her own - was in a similar position. Luckily, my nephew and young niece, who are Catholic, were there to take up the slack.
I don't visit here much, so forgive me for butting in. The definition of "catholic" (small c) above is not correct at all. Roman Catholics, who invented the phrase, use it to describe the location of the church in time and space, not to justify forcing their morals on people of other faiths. Many Catholics, christians, and people of other religions do this with a variety of justifications, but "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" has nothing to do with it. The catholic part has to do with time travel and communion with the dead. It's a lovely thing if you're a believer, or a weird and flaky thing if you're not. But there is nothing in it that says that everyone is a part of our religion whether they want to be or not. On the contrary, a clear distinction is made between those baptized and not. I also would like to express my doubt regarding the excommunication of transexuals. I haven't looked at the document in question, but according to the materials I've read, the only *automatic* excommunication is of those who receive or perform abortions and those who *assist* them. Which brings us back to John Kerry and his de facto excommunication and his refusal to acknowledge it. Politicians are arguably implicated in the "assist" part of the excommunication. I know it angers some people, but religion is a choice, as is party affiliation. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. To many Catholics, a politician who supports choice is like a Hindu who eats hamburgers. Perhaps the issue with transexuals is a misunderstanding about being able to receive communion? Many divorced people misunderstand church law to mean that they cannot receive, when it's actually not true. That may be the case with transexuals. I know that homosexuals can be full, active Catholics as long as they remain celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex. It may be that the church does not allow you to reassign your own gender and then live accordingly, which is a real tragedy in light of the medical and psychological facts, but doesn't amount to an automatic excommunication.
Finally, I wanted to point out that there have only been two infallible declarations in the history of the Catholic church, and in the two hundred year history of papal infallibility. The first was the virginity of Mary, the second was the assumption of Mary. Popes have said a lot of other things, but none of them--NONE--are infallible. Rather clever, really, since neither of these two things can be disproved.
Catherine
Catherine: Finally, I wanted to point out that there have only been two infallible declarations in the history of the Catholic church, and in the two hundred year history of papal infallibility. The first was the virginity of Mary, the second was the assumption of Mary.
Virginity? I thought it was the Immaculate Conception -- the doctrine that Mary was without sin from the moment she was conceived in her mother's womb.
Catherine,
I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make, and I can imagine that at some future point I might find myself in an emotional space where my devotion to a theoretical Church might overcome my repugnance about the actually existing hierarchy. But even if I could receive the sacraments or participate in services with a clear conscience - and there are other issues in play here like a radical dissent from anything the Church, though not all theologians, would recognize as belief in God - I would always have to do so in the sure and certain knowledge that I might be refused.
I take seriously enough the consciences of the priests in my own family to understand that there is not necessarily anything frivolour or malicious about such refusal - I just believe them to be seriously in moral error.
As to the idea that transexuals or homosexuals - and I am both - can somehow be the thing they are and not do the thing, well, that really does not work. Which bits of the gay thing is one allowed to do as a Catholic? Obviously not suck dick or lick pussy - but is one allowed to go to Pride as long as you don't hold hands? Is one allowed to listen to Judy or KD or are they occasions of sin?
Similarly, having had my gender surgically and hormonally reassigned, just what does repentance mean? Am I just allowed to say I am very sorry? Or does the church want, as it were, its pound of flesh? (At this point, the words 'firm purpose of amendment' acquire a distinctly sinister ring.)
Understand that I am not being sarcastic for its own sake, but pointing out that the present Pope and all who follow him in these matters show no sign of actually trying to understand the actual lives of actual people. Absent such sympathy, bland words about how we have not been thrown out, but cut ourselves off - sorry - from the Church are more or less meaningless.
Avram--Oh, I think you're right. It was the immaculate conception, not the ever-virginity thing.
Rob--I'm not trying to argue that you've cut yourself off, just that you are not automatically excommunicated for what or who you are. If you truly wanted to return to the Catholic church, there might be some parishes where you could be made welcome, but you're right the Church is not a comfortable place for people like you right now and I personally would like to apologize for that.
Catherine
Catherine:
The two Marian dogmas you mention (as corrected after Avram's question) are the only two dogmas we believe primarily or solely on the authority of the Pope. They are not the only occasions on which the Pope has ever spoken infallibly, much less the only infallible declarations in Church history. The Creed of the Council of Nicea would probably be the first and most famous, but there have been many others from various ecumenical councils, and several from popes, even before the infallibility of the Pope was itself dogmatically declared.
It's true that the conditions of infalliblity are narrow enough that they aren't met by every paragraph of every conciliar or papal document. Most documents which make one or more solemn declarations of dogma also make other more casual statements which though generally true are not infallibly so.
Catherine--
It's Roz, not Rob; I hope that slip was accidental.
I think I'm confused about your point. As I understand it, Church doctrine more or less prohibits gays and transsexuals who haven't "seen the error of their ways"--i.e. people who love themselves because of who they are, rather than despite it, from receiving communion; I don't know the details of their policy on excommunication. You say that GLBT folk aren't excommunicated for who they are, but if instead they're excommunicated for being who they are and liking it, the distinction is a little too fine for me. I've heard too much of the "we'll still love you as long as we never have to think about your 'lifestyle' and you don't flaunt it in our face" rhetoric in my life, thanks.
I have spent some more time trying to track down the reported automatic excommunication of transsexuals, and I just can't find it. The closest thing I found was several articles similar to this one from Catholic World News, January 2003, about a ruling from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that transsexuals cannot be ordained or admitted to religious orders. Osservatore Romano keeps only one week of articles online, so searching there was a wash; but I also did site-specific searches for "transsexual" on a number of news sites, besides broader searches with variations on "transsexual, Catholic, excommunicate". Also, I talked to a couple of people I thought might know something about it and they had never heard of it either. Roz, did you read the article in Osservatore Romano, or read a second-hand summary of it in another news source, or hear a second-hand summary of it in conversation with someone...?
Somehow it just doesn't seem terribly plausible, that the Church would excommunicate a whole class of people because of (what the Church considers to be) psychological problems. Excommunication is most commonly used for persistence in teaching heresy after being corrected, and a for a few grave sins such as desecration of the Eucharist or procuring an abortion. If a Catholic theologian were to teach that transsexuals really are instances of God putting the wrong kind of soul in the wrong kind of body, or something to that effect, and that sex-reassignment surgery is a suitable response to such a situation, then I reckon the bishops would tell him he is wrong and should stop teaching that; and if he persisted, he might eventually be excommunicated. But if such a thing had happened recently (surely if it were in the last 8-10 years for which large news archives are on the web) I would probably have found at least some passing reference to it with one of the varying search terms I used in the last few days. I hope you will not be offended if I suppose you misunderstood or misremembered something until I see further evidence. I know I sometimes misunderstand and misremember news articles I've read.
As to the idea that transexuals or homosexuals - and I am both - can somehow be the thing they are and not do the thing, well, that really does not work. Which bits of the gay thing is one allowed to do as a Catholic?
I am not the most qualified person to answer this, but I can refer you to Dave Morrison. My tentative answer would be that, in some important respects, the case of a homosexual man like Dave Morrison who, as a faithful son of the Church, lives (with difficulty) celibately is similar to the case of a friend of mine whose wife has left him and who, obedient to Christ speaking through the Church, is still faithful to his wife even though she isn't faithful to him. It is less similar to, but not totallly different from, the case of a single man who is in poor health and too socially inept to have much chance of getting married, but who resists frequent temptations to use pornography or masturbate, and less frequent temptations to fornication. In short - enjoyment of sex is not a universal right. Just as some people die before reaching puberty, or have genital deformities that make it impossible for them to have normal sex even though they have sexual desires, some people are physically capable but it is not right for one reason or another. You may not agree with this, but it is consistent internally and with the rest of what the Church teaches.
God made us; he doesn't owe us anything. To some people he gives excellent health, to some the gift of writing poetry, or being good at math, or being able to marry well, or a call to the priesthood, or what have you. It doesn't make sense for us to second-guess why he gave miscellaneous gifts to some people and not others. But all these things he gives only to some people are trivial compared to the universal (and much less deserved) invitation to love God and be loved by him forever. Answering that call requires some kind of sacrifice for everyone, though more for some than others. Being celibate when one would prefer to enjoy sex is less severe than being crucified, stoned, beheaded, roasted on a griddle, burnt alive, or something of that kind. Realizing that one's feelings are not objectively true is hard, but also less hard than suffering torture and death.
Absent such sympathy, bland words about how we have not been thrown out, but cut ourselves off - sorry - from the Church are more or less meaningless.
I sympathize with your suffering from bishops, pastors and other Church officials who sometimes seem to be (and sometimes are) harsh and unpastoral in the way they apply (or misapply) Church teaching. I have suffered only mildly and rarely this way myself, but I have friends who've suffered a good deal worse, though not in the same way as you. I think it was Flannery O'Connor who said that one sometimes must suffer more from the Church than for the Church. Only a small subset of bishops and priests are saints, and of the rest, most are going to say things from time to time that hurt people unnecessarily and unjustly. Even so, we're far better off than if we had been left on our own, with just a miscellany of books and no way to be sure which, if any, God inspired, or what they mean.
However - don't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Sometimes the words of the Pope and various bishops are taken out of context and sound more harsh than they did in context, or even take on a different meaning. I know this happens in the general media, and I should not be surprised if it sometimes happens in the gay press too, though I don't read such newspapers regularly enough to notice trends of that kind.
If I have said anything offensive, I apologize, and if you point out specifics, I will note them and try to speak more gently in the future.
If I said everything I thought would be relevant, it would be too personal for a public forum. If you want to take this discussion to email, I'm willing.
Yes, well, what the Church teaches about e.g. masturbation is not even consistent with physical health. A urologist I went to once said that the expulsion of semen at least twice weekly is needed to maintain prostate health, and failure to do so can result in enlargement of the gland, and other minor but repeated damage, which can lead to infertility or cancer.
And no, "wet dreams" do not take care of this for most males over 14. My urologist said that his patients who are Catholic priests really don't like what he tells them...since he's Catholic himself, I wonder if he feels any conflict between his duty to the Church and his duty as a physician?
Being under doctor's orders to masturbate twice weekly, now that was interesting. Compliance not really an issue.
That the teachings of the Church do not keep pace with the times is obvious to everyone; the conflict comes when we consider whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm in the "bad thing" camp myself. If the Church can revise its stand on Galileo, why not on sexuality? Yes, the teachings on sexuality are moral in nature, but based on outmoded science and directives for an environment (cultural, technological, physical) that no longer exists.
The Church hierarchy has become the Sorcerer's Apprentice (or rather the broom). It keeps on following the same old instruction set, in an enviroment where those instructions are destructive in the extreme. I predict either great changes or large schisms in the not-too-distant future.
BTW, Roz: I love the way you write, and no, not all of us missed that vicious little pun...I have decided that my life will not be complete until I have met you in person. I'm not necessarily in a huge hurry to complete my life, mind you, but...Worldcon, maybe?
Jim,
Actually, you have a point. My memory is that I read a two or three line story in the Guardian or the Telegraph mentioning the OR story. It is perhaps the case that this was untrue and I am prepared to believe you are right.
Since, however, I was bisexual as a boy, and a lesbian as a transwoman, it doesn't make much difference to my feeling of rejection by the Church. And that feeling is not ameliorated by the fact that some people within the church would regard my transexuality and my lesbianism as cancelling each other out - disrespect for my choices is the idea here.
All of this matters less to me for my own sake - as I say, there are broader theological issues here - than because it means, for example, that my father died troubled that he would never see me again because we would not be in the same part of the afterlife.
I read recently that some Islamic clerics allowed and even counseled sex-change operations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3657727.stm
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040207-064424-8727r.htm
Granted, he was certainly a pretty liberal imam, given that there are lines in the Koran that say pauline-sounding things about usages contrary to nature &c which are typically invoked in this regard and homophobia is an accepted, open fact in sharia.
But still, it's a strange thing when the first time one hears of a clergyman counseling *for* transgendering, and allowing it *beyond* obvious hermaphroditism (the usual 'medically necessary' clause) is in such a context...
I talked with my pastor about this over the weekend. He confirmed my suspicion that the "automatic excommunication" was a misunderstanding. Sterilization (except where medically necessary) and mutilation are considered wrong because they involve defacing or desecrating the work of God, the human body. But if it's motivated by a psychological disorder (I hope you are not offended by the term, but it seems to me accurate), then the culpability is lessened (or even in extreme cases eliminated). As with any other serious, deliberate sin, one must repent it, go to confession, and start doing penance before receiving communion again. But this is different from excommunication, where only a bishop can restore you to unity.
This probably won't help you in any practical way in the short term, but I hope it clears up misunderstandings about what the Church teaches and why.
there are broader theological issues here
Once you came to disbelieve what the Church teaches, you did the right thing to obey your conscience by leaving, rather than continue to call yourself Catholic through inertia or fear of change or for social advantage. But I hope you can someday come to understand and believe.
disrespect for my choices is the idea here
I'm not sure what you mean by respect or disrespect for choices, but I'll try to answer based on my best guess - let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.
When someone does something I wouldn't do in their place, but the matter is an aesthetic or otherwise morally indifferent one, I probably have no business second-guessing their choice or telling them they should do otherwise. When someone does something that seems to me objectively wrong, though, I may (depending on my office and my relationship to the person) have a duty to speak up or take other action.
The Church believes that certain actions are in the realm of objective right and wrong, which you (as far as I can tell) believe are either indifferent or ambiguous so that each person should do as seems best to them. It's part of the Church's (specifically, the bishops') job to warn people when they're doing something wrong, that is, spiritually dangerous - not different in principle from, e.g., the U.S. Surgeon General warning people about smoking and other health dangers. You may disagree with the bishops' or the Surgeon General's evaluation of danger, or consider the tone in which the warning is delivered to be annoying, but they would be slacking off if they thought something was dangerous and failed to warn people.
If it helps, I don't have much respect for some of my own choices.
I'm not sure what you mean by respect or disrespect for choices
If I had to guess, I'd say things like motivated by a psychological disorder (I hope you are not offended by the term, but it seems to me accurate) are pretty much what she meant.
Just my guess though.
Xopher, I hate to pick nits--and I agree with you in most of your postings on this subject--but I'm not sure it's fair to criticize calling TG or TS issues a "psychological disorder". I don't think it is, but from what I've read or discussed with TG friends, it's more or less required that TG people *call* themselves "psychologically disordered" to begin receiving hormones, name change, or eventually surgery. It's a contentious issue; some activists are very against that, for reasons I can agree with, and some are very protective of that DSM-IV status. It's not an issue I for one feel real qualified to have an opinion on, but it's not quite raving transphobia to refer to it the way Jim did. "Lacking in compassion" might cover it better.
Varia, I understand your point, but read his whole paragraph. He's not talking about TG as something cured by hormones/surgery. He's talking about a kind of insanity defense: the sin of self-mutilation being mitigated by having done it in the grips of mental illness.
No, it's not raving transphobia. I never accused him of any such thing. What it is is "disrespect for [Roz's] choices." As a gay man, I know that when I see it. "Oh, you're sinning by sleeping with other men, but I'm sure God will forgive you, since you just can't help yourself." They're not going to beat me up in the street, but they think I'm mentally ill. Charming.
People seem to find lesbian transexuals particulary hard to understand. This is because they think lesbians want to be men, and that transexuals want to be hetero or something. You and I know that gender identity and sexual orientation vary independently. I think Roz must have endured a level of shit that you or I can barely even imagine, and a Church (or Church hierarchy) that inflicts such pain even on her relatives (I almost cried when I read about her father) is "lacking in compassion" all right. Sorry, but that really doesn't seem like a strong enough term.
"To many Catholics, a politician who supports choice is like a Hindu who eats hamburgers."
And to many Catholics, a politician who supports choice is like, well, a typical American Catholic.
However, if all you listen to are the megaphones of our mass media, the first kind of Catholic is all that exists in modern America. Even though they're outnumbered by the second kind.
Atrios has the goods on how these lies are spun: here and here. These people are shameless--they'll nakedly line up interviews with paid functionaries of right-wing Catholic pressure groups, and then present them as if they represented a random sample of everyday Catholics picked out on the street.
This was the work of Barbara Bradley Hagerty, religion correspondent of for god's sake NPR. Who turns out to be a follower of the Jack Kelley "Calling myself a Christian means I get to just make shit up" school of journalism.
As ever, the majority of American Catholics are a lot more tolerant and accepting than the fiddly old men of the Curia and their allies in the mass media. But the truly toxic alliance is between the Barbara Bradley Hagertys who make their living telling Americans that "Catholics" all believe this or that dreadful right-wing thing--and the non-religious secular people who believe every word these liars say.
I'll stop ranting about this when I start seeing "religion correspondents" for mass-media outlets talking about the urgent question of George W. Bush's "cafeteria Methodism." Don't hold your breath.
Anyone know why the links Patrick gives to atrios.blogspot.com are forwarding to http://www.blogger.com/blogspot/notfound.pyra?url=/2004_04_25_atrios_archive.html&sub=atrios.blogspot.com#108342532735938430
which reports "The following Blog*Spot page was not found: /2004_04_25_atrios_archive.html"?
The links are working for me, Jeremy, but that Rivka link was failing for me earlier. Hm, it works now. I’m guessing Blogspot was screwed up in some way and they’ve fixed it. Probably made a change to the CGI and didn’t test it adequately before taking it live.
Jim, that "defacing or desecrating the work of God, the human body" thing, does your pastor also apply that to non-reconstructive plastic surgery and tattoos?
Jim,
I've made matters more difficult by being elliptical. What I meant when talking of 'disrespect for my choices' was the specific point that some people regard my transexuality and my lesbianism as cancelling each other out - until recently, I could have married my lover in the UK because the state did not recognize my transition legally for the purposes of marriage.
And, actually, I do regard the term 'disorder' as offensive. I regard my gender identification and my sexual object choices as fairly standard human variations - not ever variation is pathological and I tend to assume that only those which are clearly dysfunctional - and not just because Cardinal Ratzinger says so - are in any way to be regarded as such.
On the other hand, I did not stress this point when going through transition because I also live in the real world of needful compromises and had to get on with shrinks and surgeons.
Some of the choices you make are made through necessity.
I should probably stress a minor point of personal history here. As a boy, I was bi in terms of personal identification; gay in terms of the gender of the vast majority of my occasional and repeated partners; straight in terms of my one serious long-term sexual relationship; and bi in terms of my long-standing unrequited passions. I started identifying as lesbian a couple of years after surgery simply because that was the community in which I found myself living sexually at that point. It also helped that I realized that a lot of my non-casual relationships with men were very bad for me and probably for them. All of this is partly chance, partly necessity and partly choice.
The sexual histories of the significant minority of transwomen who identify as lesbian are quite varied, and I know I am neither typical nor unusual. Just so we're clear.
I mention all of this simply because it is a part of the background to my view that the Church's stance on this is simplistic to a degree unworthy of it. There are a whole bunch of possible responses to individual's personal sexual ethics that might be more helpful to people trying to lead responsible adult lives than any blanket statements.
For example, there is a real distinction in my mind between anonymous casual sex in which there is no sense of ongoing relationship and the sort of casual sex where you remain fuck-buddies or move on to a friendship informed by the fact that you have got the sex bit out of the way and don't have to worry about it very much anymore. The former is probably a bit of a dead end; the latter is a source of considerable grace and kindness and the creation of complex webs of personal relationship. And there is a huge grey area between the two which means that sometimes it is only possible to tell the difference in retrospect.
What is important is that you keep your heart open and avoid exploitation and take sensible precautions about health issues.
It seems to me that blanket condemnation of 'promiscuous sex' is not nearly as helpful as encouraging an ethic of responsibility and caring for all your neighbours including those with whom you have sex. Which in some cases might mean that you think about having sex with them and don't do it for their sake and/or yours - not because it would be bad, but because it would be unloving.
A lot of these issues are open for discussion - my objection to the Church's positions is that they seem rarely to be based on listening to actual experience. Part of the relevance of my experiences of telling doctors, at least some of the time, what they wanted and expected to hear, and of talking myself, for the occasion, into sincerely believing those things is that the one size fits all version of sin which you get in a lot of confessionals means that what the church knows about human sexuality is not necessarily the truth.
My confessors, in my Catholic teens, would listen to me talking about impure thoughts and never ask me the nature of those thoughts. I was surely not going to volunteer things which might be serious problems for them. Not least because had I been refused absolution, I would not have been able to receive Holy Communion alongside my sister and father or schoolmates the next day. The church has often, in practive, operated a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy which is, as I say, disrespectful of those of us who bother to think our positions through.
And I don't think for a second that the Church has no right to comment on these matters. I just think that if it is going to use its authority, then that authority must be considerably more responsible than it has been both in accurate understanding of experienced reality and in a sense of the consequences of what it is preaching.
If I didn't care what the Church thought, both because of my personal history with it and because of its objective power in the world, I would not be so testy about all this.
short reply, gotta dash:
Xopher, good point. The psych system for helping TG people is screwed anyway.
Roz, your post rocked.
Roz--sorry about mistyping your name. It was just a mistake. Your life situation sounds painful in many ways, although you seem to have adjusted well. I wish you all the best in your spiritual seeking (If I have interpreted your comments correctly) and of course don't have any easy answers to your conflicts with the Roman Catholic church. Thankfully, people seem to have found ways to connect with God outside the seven sacraments, so perhaps the Holy Spirit (or whatever) will have answers (and compassion) for you that the Curia does not. For my part I do not think that the church's teachings on sexuality are self-consistent. I think of it as the "pinprick perforated condom conundrum" myself.
Patrick--You're right many American Catholics support abortion rights. I saw this first hand while collecting signitures for Michigan's Birth Definition Act. A lot of people walked from the church to the donuts without stopping at my table, alas. However, the Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy and there's been an increasing push in recent years to emphasize the critical importance of the life issue to the people sitting in the pews. Even the Catholic opposition to capital punishment does not run as deeply or powerfully as its stand against abortion. Although Catholics are enjoined to follow their conscience, going against the church on this one issue should minimally involve some discomfort and some heavy prayer. A lot of politicians magically become devoted churchgoers when they run for a highly visible office. But often their first religion is their party (and that goes for both parties). John Kerry has spoken very foolishly about Catholicism in public, making referrence to popes who never existed and so forth. It's obvious that his choices are purely political.
"The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy"
Neither is Electrolite's comment section. You're definitely crossing a line with some of this stuff. "My Catholicism enjoins me to believe X" is one thing. "Catholicism means you had better get in line and believe X" is quite another. Pronouncing on how this or that political view obliges Catholics, some of whom are members of my immediate family, to engage in "heavy prayer" is right out. It's rude, for a start.
The Church includes a lot of people and outlooks. You may view Father Greeley or Garry Wills as marginal figures. To me, they sound pretty much like the Catholics I grew up around. The point is, while there's no doubt a place where it's appropriate for practitioners of a given religion to forcefully insist that other practitioners are doing it wrong, I'm quite sure this isn't that place. Unfair? See "not a democracy," above.
"John Kerry has spoken very foolishly about Catholicism in public, making referrence to popes who never existed and so forth. It's obvious that his choices are purely political."
This is definitely one of the current talking points from spin central. Wow, John Kerry said "Paul XXIII" when he meant "John XXIII." By those standards, George W. Bush shouldn't be allowed to walk around outside unattended, much less be President. Oddly enough, though, Kerry seems to be pretty serious about his faith. He and his wife met because they both went to the same conference in Rio. As most people are aware, Rio is a city that offers wealthy and powerful visitors round-the-clock opportunities for off-hours fun. Where John Kerry and Teresa Heinz met was at Mass.
As to Kerry's positions being "political," I'm far from the first person to observe in this election year that we've gone from an America in which right-wingers whispered that Catholic politicians like Al Smith and John F. Kennedy would use their political power to execute the wishes of the Vatican, to an America in which right-wingers whisper that Catholic politicians like John Kerry won't.
This discussion reminds me of an essay Rod Bennett wrote several years ago on this topic - not specifically about abortion, but about what it means to be Catholic. I just found and re-read the essay and it does seem somewhat relevant to our recent discussion here.
Re: Kerry's "Paul XXIII" - I would not put too much emphasis on mere verbal slips in any case. I don't know of any evidence that eloquence correlates strongly to administrative competence or other good qualities. Nor is it my business to judge how good a Christian Bush is (much less how good a Methodist he is, as I'm not Methodist and never have been), or how good a Christian Kerry is. As a voter all I need to do is figure out which (if either) I can in good conscience vote for - which seems less likely to be disastrous.
A Catholic politician may vote for a law that restricts abortion less than it ideally ought to be restricted, because it's in his judgment the best possible law under present political conditions. He may think it ought to be restricted at the state rather than the federal level. But John Kerry does not hold either of those positions, as far as I can tell; he supports abortion as a fundamental right, and would (correct me if I am mixing him up with someone else) support public funding of abortion as well. I can't see how that can possibly be consistent with Church teaching.
I'm nearly as disgusted with Bush as you are, and I can't possibly campaign for him; but I might end up voting for him, because the Democrats, by nominating someone as strongly pro-abortion as Kerry, have left me with no real choice. I can hope the Libertarians nominate someone at least moderately pro-life (they wouldn't have to try very hard to find someone more pro-life than Bush), but voting for such an as-yet hypothetical candidate would probably have no very good effect.
In related news, the Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey, has announced that he will no longer take communion in public. This is in response to the Archbishop of Newark announcing that people who support abortion rights should not do so.
I have mixed feelings about this. My first instinct was to write to him and say "come to the Episcopal Church, where even an open Pagan (like me) is welcomed to communion," but I decided that would be wrong for several reasons.
Roz:
In general a confessor is not going to ask for more detail unless he thinks you're being too vague for him to tell what kind of sin you've commited and whether you're actually sorry for it. Confession is not the same as psychoanalysis or counseling. Some situations require some of both, though, and not all priests are competent at counseling. Spiritual direction commonly inclues both.
I hope to come back later but that's all I can say right now.
"I can't see how that can possibly be consistent with Church teaching."
Jim, is it possible for a Catholic to disagree with one point of Church teaching (the exact point at which "life begins"), while agreeing on many other points, and still remain a Catholic, and perhaps even try to influence the Church to correct what they see as an error in Church teaching?
Or is it, if you disagree on any one point, you're out of there?
I'm not a Catholic, and I feel that the "point" at which human life begins is insufficiently well defined to be a matter for sweeping legislation rather than individual decision, especially given the cost in other human lives that such legislation entails. However, even if I was convinced that abortion was murder, I'm not sure that outweighs all the other evils committed by Bush.
But for me the most important consideration is that Bush and his allies have been working very hard to make dissent harder. I don't think Kerry will do that, and even if he does, there will still be lots of Republicans with power to oppose him. In other words, I would prefer a government which is more or less balanced and open to disagreement over a one-sided, intolerant government I agreed with.
"Is it possible for a Catholic to disagree with one point of Church teaching (the exact point at which 'life begins'), while agreeing on many other points, and still remain a Catholic, and perhaps even try to influence the Church to correct what they see as an error in Church teaching?
"Or is it, if you disagree on any one point, you're out of there?"
You will probably not be surprised to hear that different Catholics will give you different answers to this.
Currently the "my way or the highway" crowd is ascendant in the Vatican today. However, they are not eternal. Contrary to popular non-Catholic belief, Catholics do not in fact worship the Pope. As Catholic historian Garry Wills has observed, often they don't even like him very much.
Avram:
Chip: I do not have the emotional commitment to said opinion that I too often find attached to "believe".
I believe you may be overstating the degree to which "believe" necessarily implies an emotional commitment.
How can I be overstating it when I'm not stating it at all? I describe what I have seen (note "I ... find attached"); I make no claim that you must be more emotionally attached to those of your thoughts you call beliefs rather than opinions.
John Henry: Being celibate when one would prefer to enjoy sex is less severe than being crucified, stoned, beheaded, roasted on a griddle, burnt alive, or something of that kind.
I suspect Teresa can give you the exact name for the logical flaw this represents; all I can do is choke at the non sequitur of comparing the short-term pain of the willing convert with the decades of misery demanded of people brought up in the church.
It's bad enough that your god apparently approves of (effectively) self-immolation as a statement of belief; the notion that your "loving" god would make humans capable of enjoyment and then tell them that said enjoyment is vile boggles me. (Note "enjoyment", not "destructive indulgence", in case you want to suggest that mechanisms of physiological addiction are deliberate.) I expect that theologians have solved this dilemma in ways that satisfy them, but I doubt I have the energy to dissect those solutions.
Jim:
I'm honestly baffled by your statement. You say you dislike Bush, that you're "disgusted" by him. Yet one issue--the possibility of ending foetal life--is so important that you'd be willing to vote for him?
How did this issue become so important? I really can't grasp it. What's your goal? And by you, if you feel qualified to speak for the broader anti-abortion movement, go crazy. Do you want to reduce the numbers of abortions occurring in the US? If you do, there's some good hard numerical evidence that I'll be happy to dig up if you like, that outlawing it is a rather counterproductive way to behave. Higher levels of education, economic status, and access to reproductive health care for women are all far more effective.
Why is the (undefined, but a point I will stipulate for the sake of discussion) life of a foetus more important than the life of an adult human? How many abortions have been performed in the US in the last year, as opposed to civilians murdered in Iraq? What about early, protracted, painful, and economically draining deaths due to cancer, clearly linked to industrial and nuclear runoff?
Buried in my complete and utter disagreement with your position is an actual question, and one that's open to anyone who'd like to educate me. How on earth did the issue of abortion become so polarizing that it can make quite-possibly-otherwise-moral humans sign on to the contemptible vileness that is our current president?
I've been wondering that myself. Personally, I'm in agreement with the Clinton approach to abortion: that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." My brain overloads and spits sparks at the idea that anyone could support this just because George W. Bush makes encoded and meaningless gestures in the direction of being "pro-life". As a forgiving kind of guy, I welcome anyone, including folks who voted for Bush in 2000. However, anyone who votes for him in 2004 on this single issue is simply brain-damaged. For them, I have pity, but, I'm afraid, no respect.
Jeez, Chip, could you get any more distant from your own words? Maybe handle them with those long tongs people use to use for manipulating radioactive materials? Way to convince me that you’ve got the courage of your convictions.
You say you’ve got “something approaching an allergy to the word ‘believe’”, and that you “do not have the emotional commitment to said opinion that [you] too often find attached to ‘believe’”, and you expect me to believe (Gesundheit!) that you’re not implying some sort of connection between these two statements?
In your reply to Tim, which I’m quoting from, you suggest that you and he are using different meanings for “believe” (I think the quotation marks act as Benadryl). So you’re aware that it’s got multiple shades of meaning, what’s with the allergy?
Jim,
I think we are agreed that the actually existing Church is not a democracy, and that actually existing confessors are not therapists nor access points at which individual believers can explain the facts of life to the hierarchy. Where we differ is in your sense that this is a good, or at least OK thing, and my view that this is one of the many reasons why I find myself entirely estranged.
CHip:
...the non sequitur of comparing the short-term pain of the willing convert with the decades of misery demanded of people brought up in the church.
Going back to the context of what I wrote,
But all these things he gives only to some people are trivial compared to the universal (and much less deserved) invitation to love God and be loved by him forever. Answering that call requires some kind of sacrifice for everyone, though more for some than others.
Actually, I was primarily comparing the suffering of the martyrs who were tortured and killed for being Christian with the lesser suffering of people who forgo some enjoyment in obedience to Christ. I find this comparison personally helpful when I am tempted to complain about my own circumstances. Your comparison may be apt as well; maybe people brought up in the Church on average suffer more for Christ than adult converts, because they spend a larger proportion of their lives following Christ. But it seems that you are primarily talking about people like Roz, and suggesting that, by teaching things about human nature that you consider false, the Church is causing them pointless suffering. I won't deny that selective, uncharitable or imprudent application of Church teaching can and often does cause needless suffering. But the Church's teaching is true, and its proper application reduces suffering and makes the unavoidable suffering non-pointless.
What we all have to sacrifice is our self-will. Going back to Teresa's credo from Easter Monday,
I believe that a religion that exists only to tell you how good you are, and which never requires you to do anything you don’t want to do or refrain from anything you do want to do, is a species of moral cotton candy.
Our first turning away from God to do things our own way led us to want various things that are bad for us. All of us have appetites which, if we indulged them as much as we like, would destroy us. It is through the Church that Christ gives us not only the knowledge of less obvious aspects of right and wrong (obvious things we can figure out on our own), but the grace to actually do right.
...the notion that your "loving" god would make humans capable of enjoyment and then tell them that said enjoyment is vile boggles me. (Note "enjoyment", not "destructive indulgence", ...
Almost anything good can be misused, and not all destructive indulgence is immediately and obviously so. Part of the reason for revelation is to point out the less obvious instances so we can avoid them without having to find out the hard way that they are destructive. Part of the reason for a permanent church with teaching authority is so we won't forget or ignore these things when intellectual fashions change.
But I'm not sure there's much point in going into details about the Church's moral teaching, when you don't believe in God or any kind of divine revelation. We may not have enough assumptions in common to debate fruitfully.
Varia:
You say you dislike Bush, that you're "disgusted" by him. Yet one issue--the possibility of ending foetal life--is so important that you'd be willing to vote for him?
The more I think about it, probably not. But I can't vote for Kerry, either.
The life of an unborn American baby is not more important than the life of an Iraqi civilian. But not less important, either.
Patrick:
My brain overloads and spits sparks at the idea that anyone could support this just because George W. Bush makes encoded and meaningless gestures in the direction of being "pro-life".
Imprisoning people indefinitely without due process is an evil thing, and would be even if the imprisoned people were treated much better than they are.
And my brain boggles that when I think of people - who say they believe unborn babies, at least in the latter stages of pregnancy, are people - who will support aborting babies up until the very moment they are being born, and using public funds to pay for abortions, just because they hope John Kerry will be less tyrranical toward already born humans than Bush.
I was thinking unclearly earlier in terms of choosing "the lesser of two evils". But this is not a situation where one really has to do so. If voting for a presidential candidate means supporting (even if reluctantly, as part of a package deal) every policy that one can be morally sure he will follow, then it is immoral to vote for Bush (because he locks people up without trial, among other things) and immoral to vote for Kerry (because he says the government should take no steps to protect unborn babies from agression, and will probably use federal funding for abortions as other Democratic presidents have done via executive order). I don't like the idea of abstaining in a Presidential election, which I will probably have to do if (as often happens) the Libertarians nominate someone pro-abortion. But you're right. Kerry's support for abortion doesn't make Bush's tyrrany or unjust war OK.
Of course, if you actually think abortion is fine, nothing wrong with it, the choice of Kerry is obvious and easy. But I wonder how you can be so sure that unborn babies are not people and there's nothing wrong with killing them. What argument in favor of free abortion applies to babies in the ninth month of gestation, or even in the process of birth, that doesn't also apply to newborn babies up to several weeks old?
Wait, Jim. Where are you getting the "ninth month of pregnancy" stuff? Are third trimester abortions legal anywhere in this country? If so, where? If not, what are you talking about?
Jim, are you under the impression that a Kerry presidency would result in more abortions than a second Baby Bush presidency? If so, could you explain your reasoning, with pointers to empirical evidence of some sort? (And you might want to read this first.) If not, if it's only Kerry's support for the various procedures and not an increase in the number of procedures performed, than why is that support more important to you than actual deaths, mutilations, and tortures being performed because of Bush's desire for adventure?
Jim, can you point to any evidence that Kerry wants to make third-trimester abortions more widely used than they are now (a total of 100 per year across the entire US, according to the rabidly liberal anti-life folks at Fox News)?
Jim: when you \start/ with "But the Church's teaching is true", you justify your own later "We may not have enough assumptions in common to debate fruitfully."
And I consider your invocation of Teresa's remark to be not debate but deceit. I did not say that a moral leadership should make no uncomfortable demands; I questioned your claim of a god who has made man of a certain nature and then declared that made nature to be abominable, condemning many people to a life not just of less than perfect delight but of massive pain.
Avram: why are you surprised that I back away from what you say are my words when you distort/irradiate them before throwing them back at me? My ]allergy[ to "believe" is a \consequence/ of my observation of the use of this word; it is not as universally deplored as (e.g.) "nigger", but it has reached toward a similarly dark territory. You may have noticed that this is a problem with words; different people use them differently, without even awareness (let alone warning) that they are doing so.
Chip: My ]allergy[ to "believe" is a \consequence/ of my observation of the use of this word; it is not as universally deplored as (e.g.) "nigger", but it has reached toward a similarly dark territory.
We are, I think, living on entirely different planets of discourse, with languages that only superficially seem to share a vocabulary. Your comments on the use of the word “believe” bear not even a vague resemblance to my own experience, in which a popular song can start out “I believe the children are our future” and a person can say “I believe I’ll have the steak” without getting so much as a dirty look from anyone but PETA members.
Arguments about abortion have a strong tendency to collapse into a known end state. Jim Henry, I'd just this once like to not see that happen.
And just for the historical record, when I made that remark about cotton-candy religion, I didn't just mean that fad for wearing little guardian angel earrings and pins, and most of the claptrap that went with it, irritating though it was.
Even more, what I had in mind were the Chinos in government, whose religion apparently exists to tell them that God is on their side and thinks they're just swell, but doesn't require them to feed the hungry, tend the sick, comfort the oppressed, forgive those who offend them, and refrain from theft, murder, and bearing false witness. See also, the Landover Baptist Church.
Jim,
There are so many other people arguing far more eloquently than I about the abortion debate; here's a link to a very good one, in my opinion. I swiped the link from Rivka's blog, Respectful of Otters.
If that doesn't convince you, may I ask why? Primarily for my own education; if there are holes in the argument, please show me.
And just for the historical record, when I made that remark about cotton-candy religion, I didn't just mean that fad for wearing little guardian angel earrings and pins, and most of the claptrap that went with it, irritating though it was.
Understood, Teresa, but your comment did remind me of a classic remark I heard from Anne Lamott on NPR one morning: "When I became a Christian I thought that neant I was suppoed to wear pink and live in a trailer park."
I laughed so hard I hearly lost control of my car.
First: A trifling query for anyone who has time. Three comments ago, our esteemed & worthy hostess mentioned "the Chinos in government".
Some 15-20 years after being bamboozled by Stephen King's references to chinos as some sort of garment or possibly shoe (he used a lot of specific brands, often unknown here), the brand came here & we learnt they were casual pants. Is this a similar reference, that they are like empty, hollow uniforms without heart or brain?
Short for chickenhawk?
I believe it stands for "CHristians In Name Only."
Jim Henry appears to have slunk away.
Or is that 'slunken'? Whatever.
[This is the most recent thread I can find pertinent to this subject.]
There has been quite a bit of discussion of the often-pernicious influence of "hard-line" religious figures in US politics. Along with various unpleasant ructions happening in the Sydney diocese (see an earlier comment about one example, in this article)
There have been several prominent figures in politics, often having influence because they "hold the balance of power" in a chamber fairly evenly split between the two larger groupings of Labor & the Liberal-National coalition. We have also been hearing about religious groupings within - and across - parties.
Now there seems to be a push on. www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2004/05/06/1083635285149.html
Liberals' new branch masters art of the stack, the stoush and the all-in brawl by Paola Totaro, State Political Editor, May 7, 2004
The first text message arrived about 9.30pm, followed quickly by another and another. By 10.25pm, three police cars, eight officers and a police dog were on their way to Punchbowl.
"The right's starting a fight . . . there's a riot . . . the police have arrived," said the final message to an MP's mobile phone.
The venue was the Croatian Club on Punchbowl Road. The event? A meeting of the newest branch of the NSW Liberal Party.
... With the Young Liberal leadership now dominated by its new hardline right-wing president, Alex Hawke, there is also an increasing push against the moderates inside the parliamentary party. It is being led by his boss, the conservative upper house member David Clarke.
An avowed and vocal Christian, Mr Clarke is vehemently opposed to abortion, gay marriage, harm minimisation and drug law reform...
A friend's comment on one recent development (slightly rude for delicate sensibilities)
How come your spam-catcher catches me, & not them? Ah, well...
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Things I don't believe.: