Pope: sex abuse revelations were a 'shock'

[Finny61]

What I find impressive is this...
"said Joelle Casteix of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests"

There is an organization for everything these days!!!

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Pope is a very smart man and his comments are taking people aback because frankly, most people don't want to or can't seriously consider what the Pope is actually saying.

How intelligent can he truly be if he throws 100% of his trust and faith in a god that can do anything, but does nothing?

..Frankly.

[peter12]

I know you say this a lot about the 'new atheists' since they obviously by being part of this recent upswing in disbelief are obviously not smart because they haven't read enough philosophy or become deep thinkers like theologians... But I'm so curious as to what do you mean by the atheist nonsense and not actually engaging the ideas, specifically?

The Prospect abstract summed it up quite well. Most atheists subscribe to the sneering nonsense of Hume, Russell, and the rest of the English analytical philosophers. Continental philosophy and the Burkean school are far more engaging with religious thoughts and even if they reject it are far more willing to accept the consequences of their atheism.

So I'll clarify that when I mean "atheism," I really mean this new (but not really new) strain of English atheism which actually owes any serious portion of its thought to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Bacon. Name-dropping sure, but I am trying to really narrow down what I mean by new atheists.

The moral teachings of the church? You mean no condoms for AIDS ridden Africa, the cover up of pedophiles/abuse, the anti-gay stance, the backwards treatment of women being denied positions of power, celibacy, etc..

There's certainly a huge moral divide between the Church's praxis and it's moral theology. I agree. In fact, as I said earlier, that is probably what matters most. It still doesn't change the fact that people write off the good part of the Church (the moral theology) far, far too easily.

I always get the feeling you feel that most of the new atheists (hate that term) aren't sophisticated enough to have arrived at their position or that they have no business debating it since they haven't been reading theology or philosophical takes on the issue of God. I don't imagine you hold those who deny the existence of unicorns as harshly, considering I myself am a a-unicornist without having read deeply the books pertaining to these mystical creatures nor have I pondered deeply about their meaning and existence.

The flying spaghetti monster or the unicorns or the fairies are just such examples of the absolutely weak logical conundrums that new atheists come up with.

It's not that they don't deserve to debate the issue, it's a democracy, everyone can debate any issue. But it also doesn't mean that I can't roll my eyes everytime this humanist moral outrage stuff comes rolling around. It's almost predictable how atheists will react everytime the Pope opens his mouth.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

What I've noticed is that theists are invariably well-read on theology, and can intelligently articulate the arguments for belief in God without exception. It's only atheists that have no real grasp on why they think as they do; it's quite perplexing to me how this could be so. Seriously, have you ever met a theist who couldn't explain an example of an ontological argument for God? I know I haven't.

It's really easy to present an issue within a postulated dualistic paradigm. Am I a theist? No, I'm not. The vast majority of religious people are as "bad" as the atheists.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Pope is a very smart man and his comments are taking people aback because frankly, most people don't want to or can't seriously consider what the Pope is actually saying.

He's saying he's shocked, people are considering it and finding that hard to believe given his history in the church and his prior involvement in the issues.

An ad hominem is not always fallacious, the actions of the pope are relevant moral authority of the office. But using sex abuse scandals to attack the Christian faith, yes I agree.

Originally Posted by peter12

The BHA is totally out to lunch on this one. The Pope is saying that today's atheists are too wishy-washy and frankly, too stupid to have any sort of real contribution to moral debates.

This sounds a lot like other cases where you make claims about what people say but don't substantiate it. So let's look at what was actually said:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate.

Nothing in there about atheists being wishy washy or too stupid to enter into moral debates. Too bad though, that was kind of catchy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's almost predictable how atheists will react everytime the Pope opens his mouth.

Just like it's predictable what some people will post in response?

Someone get the memo out to the atheists, next time the Pope says something that's intolerant and historically inaccurate to spread ignorance to puff up his own viewpoint, everyone keep in mind that there are some good moral practices and teachings of the Catholic church so don't say anything about it ok?

Talk about eye-rolling...

[Thor]

lol Dawkins is losing it over the Pope's statements.

This statement by the pope, on his arrival in Edinburgh, is a despicable outrage. Even if Hitler had been an atheist, his political philosophy was not based upon atheism and had no connection with atheism. Hitler was arguably (and by his own account) a Roman Catholic. In any case he enjoyed the open support of many of the most senior catholic clergy in Germany and the less demonstrative support of Pope Pius XII.

Even if Hitler had been an atheist (he certainly was not), the rank and file Germans who carried out the attempted extermination of the Jews were Christians, almost to a man: either Catholic or Lutheran, primed to their anti-Semitism by centuries of Catholic propaganda about 'Christ-killers' and by Martin Luther's own seething hatred of the Jews. To mention Ratzinger's membership of the Hitler Youth might be thought to be fighting dirty, but my feeling is that the gloves are off after this disgraceful paragraph by the pope.

I feel like bombarding every newspaper in Britain with letters of protest.

letters@guardian.co.uk
letters@thetimes.co.uk
letters@independent.co.uk
The trick to getting letters published is to keep them BRIEF as well as literate and correctly punctuated.

I am incandescent with rage at the sycophantic BBC coverage, and the sight of British toadies bowing and scraping to this odious man. I thought he was bad before. This puts the lid on it.
Richard

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Just like it's predictable what some people will post in response?

Someone get the memo out to the atheists, next time the Pope says something that's intolerant and historically inaccurate to spread ignorance to puff up his own viewpoint, everyone keep in mind that there are some good moral practices and teachings of the Catholic church so don't say anything about it ok?

Talk about eye-rolling...

You're right, let's look at what was actually said:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

What if God meant "Good?" A representation of ideal justice and the illumination of a society's values and perception of the Good Life. The Nazis were godless in the sense that they were nihilists; they destroyed merely to destroy with the false rationality that the destruction of the Jews would somehow validate the experience of the Nazis as the Aryan Master Race. Philosophically, following this argument, we can see that the Nazis weren't Christians of any kind, but were merely evil. We can also see that liberal atheism does not have the intellectual heft or moral understanding to understand this issue appropriately.

Modern atheists are essentially bourgeous ideologues. Dangerous behavior is lumped into a single category with little distinction as to why or how it functionalizes itself in human life. Thus, to atheists, religion is the cause of all irregular human behavior, Nazism was clearly irregular, and atheism is safe, generally tolerant behavior. Ergo, Nazism must have more in common with religion than it does with atheism.

The ethics of God-believing are far more important than the cheap refutation of God-believing. The predictable sneering of atheists at the mere mention of the Pope's name is ridiculous and frankly, it's not even original.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol Dawkins is losing it over the Pope's statements.

I am confused because he never mentioned anything about flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns or fairies. What kind of new atheist does he think he is anyway?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I am confused because he never mentioned anything about flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns or fairies. What kind of new atheist does he think he is anyway?

No, it's just simplistic, bourgeous outrage. Richard Dawkins is not a serious person.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Prospect abstract summed it up quite well. Most atheists subscribe to the sneering nonsense of Hume, Russell, and the rest of the English analytical philosophers. Continental philosophy and the Burkean school are far more engaging with religious thoughts and even if they reject it are far more willing to accept the consequences of their atheism.

I doubt most atheists have read any of those philosophers, most people don't care to read books.

Its safe to say that there are many other philosophers that would disagree with you on calling Hume, Russell "sneering nonsense."

So I'll clarify that when I mean "atheism," I really mean this new (but not really new) strain of English atheism which actually owes any serious portion of its thought to Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Bacon. Name-dropping sure, but I am trying to really narrow down what I mean by new atheists.

Thanks, I was just curious to how you defined it, you often define things a fair bit different than most of us in these debates.

The flying spaghetti monster or the unicorns or the fairies are just such examples of the absolutely weak logical conundrums that new atheists come up with.

Its not weak, its the truth. To an atheist we are arguing about something that isn't there, so to us it resides in the brain where unicorns and fairies exist, the imagination or as south park calls it Imaginationland.

It's not that they don't deserve to debate the issue, it's a democracy, everyone can debate any issue. But it also doesn't mean that I can't roll my eyes everytime this humanist moral outrage stuff comes rolling around. It's almost predictable how atheists will react everytime the Pope opens his mouth.

So if people react as you'd expect them to, considering their ideology, this is eye rolling?

Photon already covered it but how should atheists react to him suggesting extremist atheism was responsible for the horrors of nazi Germany. Switch atheists with jews in that statement and turn this into a biblical blunder of the ages.

[peter12]

I doubt most atheists have read any of those philosophers, most people don't care to read books.

Its safe to say that there are many other philosophers that would disagree with you on calling Hume, Russell "sneering nonsense."

If we can't be offensive about positions that we hold, what's the point?

Its not weak, its the truth. To an atheist we are arguing about something that isn't there, so to us it resides in the brain where unicorns and fairies exist, the imagination or as south park calls it Imaginationland.

This idea of God seems to exist as a serious proposition to most people. It directs our politics and culture. It deserves serious contemplation, not facetious and sarcastic comments.

So if people react as you'd expect them to, considering their ideology, this is eye rolling?

Photon already covered it but how should atheists react to him suggesting extremist atheism was responsible for the horrors of nazi Germany. Switch atheists with jews in that statement and turn this into a biblical blunder of the ages.

This makes me laugh. Do you really consider cultural resistance to atheism to be similar to anti-Semitism?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it's just simplistic, bourgeous outrage. Richard Dawkins is not a serious person.

I almost wonder if one day you'll just put up a post telling us you were doing an experiment on trolling the intrawebz when you say something like that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

I almost wonder if one day you'll just put up a post telling us you were doing an experiment on trolling the intrawebz when you say something like that.

I've insulted someone who you clearly consider a source of revelatory information and you call it trolling? I don't think he's a serious person, he's sort of like a stereotypical bourgeois parent who has caught his child looking at pornography on the internet. The humanity! I blame the schools!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it's just simplistic, bourgeous outrage. Richard Dawkins is not a serious person.

What's your problem with atheists anyways? They seem to be your favourite whipping boy of the moment.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's really easy to present an issue within a postulated dualistic paradigm. Am I a theist? No, I'm not. The vast majority of religious people are as "bad" as the atheists.

Are you this pretentious in real life?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Are you this pretentious in real life?

No, not even close! Obviously, the Internet allows us to present a side of us that is pretty devoid of social context.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

If we can't be offensive about positions that we hold, what's the point?

Its definitely more fun

This idea of God seems to exist as a serious proposition to most people. It directs our politics and culture. It deserves serious contemplation, not facetious and sarcastic comments.

I disagree, while its very serious to some, a lot of the world is culturally religious or if you go by many statistics a large number of the world is now non-religious/atheist/agnostic/dont care.. I think its fine people discuss and debate it, they feel the necessity. I don't see any use for religion anymore, at least the old organized religions that are pervasive in the world.

I'd be more at easy with a modern version of God which wasn't so handcuffed to historical rules and traditions which should have long ago been abandoned.

This makes me laugh. Do you really consider cultural resistance to atheism to be similar to anti-Semitism?

Not at all, just when you single out a group and make statements that that groups ideology is responsible for horrible atrocities when its an outright lie its very much deeply offensive.

But lets not forget, there are parts of this world where being openly atheist can cost you freedom or your life. There are routinely statements on main stream TV calling atheists all kinds of despicable things without anyone raising an eyebrow.

Just recently a Rabbi on Glenn Beck said that he had many atheist friends, but said the he tells them that they are parasites on our society. Ironic considering a Jew is calling Atheists parasites.

[peter12]

I disagree, while its very serious to some, a lot of the world is culturally religious or if you go by many statistics a large number of the world is now non-religious/atheist/agnostic/dont care.. I think its fine people discuss and debate it, they feel the necessity. I don't see any use for religion anymore, at least the old organized religions that are pervasive in the world.

I think one of the biggest fallacies of the "new atheists" is this idea that culture and God can be seperated once and for all with no negative effect.

I'd be more at easy with a modern version of God which wasn't so handcuffed to historical rules and traditions which should have long ago been abandoned.

I'd actually be MORE comfortable with a God tied to tradition, rule and ceremony. We seem to have precisely the opposite now.

Not at all, just when you single out a group and make statements that that groups ideology is responsible for horrible atrocities when its an outright lie its very much deeply offensive.

But lets not forget, there are parts of this world where being openly atheist can cost you freedom or your life. There are routinely statements on main stream TV calling atheists all kinds of despicable things without anyone raising an eyebrow.

Do you really think the Pope means Jim and Sally who are members of the British Humanist Association are as evil as the Nazis?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've insulted someone who you clearly consider a source of revelatory information and you call it trolling? I don't think he's a serious person, he's sort of like a stereotypical bourgeois parent who has caught his child looking at pornography on the internet. The humanity! I blame the schools!

You clearly don't know much about him do you. But if you must know I got to know him by his biology books, and of course I loved his God delusion.

Why is he not serious, how do you define serious?

The man is a passionate defender of his chosen field of science which is under attack all over the world. While teachers who teach latin don't have to fight off dumb parents who deny Rome even existed, he has to battle not only these people but try to inspire people to take part in the beauty of biology and our understanding of nature.

Obviously he's rough around the edges, he's a science guy thrown into the spotlight because he wrote a book on God and was forced into being a spokesperson for it. I don't think he's terribly good at it, I think people see him as strident but he's very much a mild mannered guy.

I prefer someone like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris to hear argue or debate God. I love to watch Hitchens simply for his wit and bulldogish ability to debate.

But obviously since I referenced these best sellers of recent years I'm a typical new atheist with no real deep understanding of what I'm talking about.