Pope: sex abuse revelations were a 'shock'

[troutman]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Seems to me he's a primo example of how organized religion morphs and adapts it's message to protect it's power base.

The Pope would have ordered him burned at the stake for those observations only a few hundred years ago.

Cowperson

I'm not arguing either side, in fact I somewhat agree with you.
But, that really doesn't change the fact that this guy is actually very qualified to be speaking on the posiblity of life in the universe.

However, I've always been of the opinion that being a jerk is being a jerk regardless of what side you are on. I was making the point that Cheese was using his old tactic of ignoring the majority of the article, and the qualification of the person making the statments that he's given no context to, and putting it in sarcastic statments like "Yes I wrote that right" just so he can bash religion. In my opinion, he's may be infinately more correct on most issues about science, but he's just as big of an intollerant blowhard as a lot of religious fanatics.

What you've done is make a well reasoned statment of your opinion, an I'm sure you'd be keen to have a rational debate about it were I so inclined. That's cool.

Cheese on the other hand will just throw out his usual statements of "I'm a humanist, I respect people. Even those stupid people who believe in fairy tales that are stupid, and especially the stupid ones who want to baptize aliens".

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Seems to me he's a primo example of how organized religion morphs and adapts it's message to protect it's power base.

The Pope would have ordered him burned at the stake for those observations only a few hundred years ago.

Cowperson

Careful there are people that won't believe that

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is one of the most moronic things I have read in the past 15 minutes or so. You try doing it first. The fact that I understand what new atheists is, and have tried to explain it logically and you don't understand is not my fault.

I understand what you are getting at with most of your categories and labels, I just don't agree that they are in any way useful or actually accurately categorize large groups of people. Of course I hated that tendency in political science to merely categorize phenomenon instead of trying to understand that similar viewpoints shouldn't be grouped and lumped together because that ends up misrepresenting things.

Your extravagant use of labels, especially ideological ones suggests you have a certain way of viewing the world, history, peoples, etc and it is a view I don't particularly agree with. It also makes it hard to debate anything with you because you resort to these labels and categories instead of identifying subtle differences in position.

You associate certain ideologies and labels with philosophers that most people will not have read in-depth so that is a clear failing right there. Most people are not buying into an ideology based on philosopher X, in fact most people don't have a precisely articulated ideology that they would adhere to. That is the stuff of defending positions in certain types of essays and doesn't necessarily reflect real views on issues.

Originally Posted by peter12

Fact is, philosophical anthropologies are important and I do my best to communicate exactly what they are. It's a complicated process, but I am, in no way, a snob about.

Sorry but your whole post screams snob.

Originally Posted by peter12

Most people can try to behave and interact respectfully, even when the subject matter is complex and controversial. I don't think you can handle it.

What part of my post wasn't respectful? I certainly could've been a lot less respectful. You getting all defensive when somebody suggests your way of interacting on this board might have some flaws suggests you can't handle criticism very well.

I love high level debate and discussion especially since its rare to have it. But the way you label and categorize people goes against my way of thinking about most issues so we don't really end up having much common ground to talk about. I see a lot of flaws with the tendency in poli-sci and political philosophy to lump people into ideologies and groups, to say people take the stance of this or that philosopher in all things.

If you can't handle criticism then feel free to ignore what I've said. You've been well trained in the categorizing/labeling method so I don't expect you to be able to change the way you debate issues.

[peter12]

I understand what you are getting at with most of your categories and labels, I just don't agree that they are in any way useful or actually accurately categorize large groups of people. Of course I hated that tendency in political science to merely categorize phenomenon instead of trying to understand that similar viewpoints shouldn't be grouped and lumped together because that ends up misrepresenting things.

I'm not a political scientist, I'm a political theorist. And I agree with you, we shouldn't just cluster people based on some lame quantitative statistic spread.

Your extravagant use of labels, especially ideological ones suggests you have a certain way of viewing the world, history, peoples, etc and it is a view I don't particularly agree with. It also makes it hard to debate anything with you because you resort to these labels and categories instead of identifying subtle differences in position.

But this is useful. Ideas flow throughout history in currents. Once you understand the ideas, you can understand people a bit more. Of course, it doesn't mean that I just look at the idea and not the person. That would be useless.

I always try to identify subtlety. In fact, I have tried to stray away from being too subtle because I realize that it often becomes TOO esoteric.

You associate certain ideologies and labels with philosophers that most people will not have read in-depth so that is a clear failing right there. Most people are not buying into an ideology based on philosopher X, in fact most people don't have a precisely articulated ideology that they would adhere to. That is the stuff of defending positions in certain types of essays and doesn't necessarily reflect real views on issues.

You do not need to have read a particular philosopher to be associated with his or her ideas. Philosophers are not ideological rhetoricians, but are scholars of humanity. In political theory, they identify aspects of a particular regime with its people. People often unknowingly encompass these aspects to a length that it envelopes a good deal of their person.

I want to say again what a mis-understanding of philosophy this is. Philosophy is not ideology. By itself, it does not create worldviews but questions them.

Sorry but your whole post screams snob.

These are the technical terms of my trade and it's a good trade.

I love high level debate and discussion especially since its rare to have it. But the way you label and categorize people goes against my way of thinking about most issues so we don't really end up having much common ground to talk about. I see a lot of flaws with the tendency in poli-sci and political philosophy to lump people into ideologies and groups, to say people take the stance of this or that philosopher in all things.

We don't lump people together. What is the alternative? Life isn't relative.

If you can't handle criticism then feel free to ignore what I've said. You've been well trained in the categorizing/labeling method so I don't expect you to be able to change the way you debate issues.

It's criticism, but it's not good criticism as you fail to understand what I am trying to do.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

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.

Is he? Really?

Where exactly does he say that, cause it wasn't in the speech I read.

What I read was him making an extremely questionable association between Nazis and Atheists. An association that should be offensive to most atheists.

What is atheistic extremism anyways? The Pope fails to define it adequately in his speech.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

Your arguments here are not supported at all. You make some basic equations that would probably need at least a few paragraphs to be believable at all.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

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 don't believe many atheists who've seriously thought about the issue of religion and culture do believe they can be separated anytime soon or that the issue is a simple one. Either you misrepresent certain people as "new atheists" or you don't understand their position.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Agreed. Although, if we seperate any human being from a revelatory conception of the good, how can we say that they believe anything at all. The Nazis, upon close demonstration, clearly didn't believe anything. Liberal atheists are really just one step away and although, clearly not nihilists in the brutalist sense they way the Nazis were, they do hold generally lukewarm conceptions of reality which as I said earlier, don't really say or mean much.

Liberal atheists are really just one step away from not believing anything?

Extremely questionable statement and one that you'd need to back up.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't believe many atheists who've seriously thought about the issue of religion and culture do believe they can be separated anytime soon or that the issue is a simple one. Either you misrepresent certain people as "new atheists" or you don't understand their position.

The current conception of culture is pretty degraded by democracy anyway. If we wanted to tie everything together, I think both sides (are there both sides) are rife with problems. What particularly irks me about the new atheists/humanists (to understand why they are new, you have to understand what is old about them) is the innocent but trite arrogance. The wide-eyed and naive outrage. The cliched moralism.

At least the Catholic Church is downright evil, but everyone knows that already.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

You love your sweeping statements about certain ideological groups that you have failed to define clearly. I love it when you equate category A with category B as well. Or add multiple labels to further muddy exactly what you are talking about.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

The current conception of culture is pretty degraded by democracy anyway. If we wanted to tie everything together, I think both sides (are there both sides) are rife with problems. What particularly irks me about the new atheists/humanists (to understand why they are new, you have to understand what is old about them) is the innocent but trite arrogance. The wide-eyed and naive outrage. The cliched moralism.

At least the Catholic Church is downright evil, but everyone knows that already.

More sweeping generalizations about massive ideological groups. You love to hide behind them. All atheists demonstrate innocent but trite arrogance? Wide-eyed and naive outrage? Or do you just like painting wide groups of people with sensational descriptions? Sure seems like it. There's a pretty diverse group of people who are atheists. With very different motivations, very different backgrounds for believing what they believe.

Your sweeping generalizations fail to acknowledge the wide sub-variety of positions in the group you call atheists.

[Traditional_Ale]

Not trying to stir the pot or pile-on or anything, but I had a conversation the other day that might relate to the exchange between peter12 and FDW. My buddy teaches guitar, and sometimes to very young kids. But even with Julliard grads and stuff he has a simple 'philosophy' about teaching. "If you can't or won't explain things using words a seven year old could understand then you're not teaching. Your jerking off in their face."

[SeeBass]

What I dont know is what is a New Atheist?

Is this somebody that is now an atheist in the last few years

Is this the current exposure that atheism was never given but has had the same view all along.

Is it the opinions of non believers that are finally not afraid to speak up?

Is it people buying mainstream books on atheism that are not afraid to read them at the airport or pool now?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Liberal atheists are really just one step away from not believing anything?

Extremely questionable statement and one that you'd need to back up.

I think that, more precisely, the modern bourgeois doesn't really account for anything at all. So while they don't have much in the way of grand vision, they also don't have enough in the way of personal substantive beliefs that provides a good alternate narrative for that of religion or more traditionally, aristocracy or something.

What I'm talking about is ultimately, the values of liberalism, particularly articulated by the new atheists. What do I mean by new atheists? What I mean is that generally (so take note, I am not lumping all atheists together. I am functionally one myself) what I see as the new popular incarnation of atheism, especially through the undeniably central fixture of Richard Dawkins, is really a revitalization of older ideas that have been implicitly fixed within the liberal narrative ever since the Enlightenment. The problem is that many people like Dawkins aren't aware of their context. The early liberal atheists, like John Locke and Francis Bacon, articulated their atheism quite publicly but they had the benefit of a social audience that understand generally what theoretical and social goal they were trying to accomplish. People understood that atheism, as Locke prescribed, was radical.

What has happened now is the realization of Nietzsche's proclamation in Thus Spake Zarathustra... God is dead, we've killed him, but we don't know it yet etc...

Liberals knowingly killed off God or gods but didn't create something adequate to replace him. What was the replacement? General token compassion, the desire to accumulate material wealth and some form of safe atomized life.

This is our society today. One that is fat, soft-spoken, and generally outraged at anything which threatens the above values. Atheists have lost their radical touch which was earned at the cost of knowing what it was that they endeavoured to kill.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Not trying to stir the pot or pile-on or anything, but I had a conversation the other day that might relate to the exchange between peter12 and FDW. My buddy teaches guitar, and sometimes to very young kids. But even with Julliard grads and stuff he has a simple 'philosophy' about teaching. "If you can't or won't explain things using words a seven year old could understand then you're not teaching. Your jerking off in their face."

Agreed. I'd love to see him him try and debate without using loaded terms that mean different things in anthropology/psychology/philosophy/political-science that paint massive groups of people with the same brush.

Making sweeping generalizations about ideological groups doesn't help further any debate. It obfuscates it :P

Lets talk about what we think about these issues and debate our own opinions.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Why is it so odd that there would be an stronomer on the Vatican payrole.

Good job though with your usual schtick. Throw out an article and pull out the line that makes someone in a position of power within a religion look like a moron, and totally ignore the rest of the article and the rational thought displayed by that person.

Like this:
The Pope's astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, said he would be happy to 'baptise an al ien' - but admitted that the chances of communicating with life outside the Earth were low.

or this:
Dr Consolmagno also dismissed Creationism and claimed that the revival of 'intelligent design' - the controversial theory that only God can explain gaps in the theory of evolution - was 'bad theology'.


Or this:
Asked if he would baptise an alien, he replied: 'Only if they asked.'
He added: 'I'd be delighted if we found life elsewhere and delighted if we found intelligent life elsewhere.

'But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it - when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.


Seems to me the guy is actually a pretty qualified scientist who agrees with the general concensus on life in the universe, and was answering questions about how that view conincides with his religious beliefs, and did so in a pretty uncontradictory way.

But yeah, let's point out that "OMG the pope has an astronomer!!!! And he wants to baptize aliens"

Yup, I love the good old Cheese M.O. of throwing out out of context quotes to passive agressively bash religion.

Oh, and for the record, the Pope's Astronomer (yes I said that right), is a pretty qualified dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno

Those degrees from MIT, University of Arizona, and teaching at Harvard, be damned, the guy wants to baptize aliens.

ya ya BBS...seriously take a chill pill and relax man, your hemorrhoids will burst and make a mess of your chair!
As Cow mentions above...and as I would have mentioned myself...not too long ago he would have been hung for even thinking what he said. Just another example of the hypocrisy of the church.
Feel free to stand up and be its protector or whatever you wish to call yourself. Oh wait you arent really a Catholic are you?.

This is also a great quote...laughable actually:

Dr Consolmagno, one of a team of 12 astronomers working for the Vatican, said the Catholic Church had been supporting and funding science for centuries.

Any entity - no matter how many tentacles it has - has a soul,' he added.

I also think it humorous that the Vatican would have an Astronomer on payroll when everything they know is written in a book.
Maybe its a mistake as one of the comments suggest...he is really the Popes Asstronomer. Oops sorry, did I let that slip?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

More sweeping generalizations about massive ideological groups. You love to hide behind them. All atheists demonstrate innocent but trite arrogance? Wide-eyed and naive outrage? Or do you just like painting wide groups of people with sensational descriptions? Sure seems like it. There's a pretty diverse group of people who are atheists. With very different motivations, very different backgrounds for believing what they believe.

Your sweeping generalizations fail to acknowledge the wide sub-variety of positions in the group you call atheists.

All of those cliches are pretty loaded. So let's unpack them, okay?

Bourgeois atheists
Christian atheists
Radical atheists

I pulled these groups literally from thin air, but in the interest of defending myself, I think that they mainly correspond with three streams of atheism that exist today.

The first group is the liberal group that I mentioned above.

Christian atheists or Atheist Christianity I think is articulated best by Nietzsche. I would put myself in this group. We recognize what we are killing and that the end of religion would have dire consequences for human life.

Last group thinks that god is a superstructure or oppressive tool used by elites to control public opinion.

That's all brutally insufficient, I know, but I think those are the three main groups.

An even perfunctory examination of popular media would indicate that the first group is the extreme majority.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Agreed. I'd love to see him him try and debate without using loaded terms that mean different things in anthropology/psychology/philosophy/political-science that paint massive groups of people with the same brush.

Making sweeping generalizations about ideological groups doesn't help further any debate. It obfuscates it :P

Lets talk about what we think about these issues and debate our own opinions.

This is the greatest example of false consciousness on this board; the belief that somehow one can express one's own opinion completely independent of the social or historical context.

[SeeBass]

I understand what you are trying to say Peter12 but I really think you are putting to much into the whole atheist label.

I just think it to be much easier to define by my personal thoughts only...I have read the book, I have listened to the message, I see no evidence, I'm not buying it, so I'm out.

That's all I need to make up my mind I dont need a PHD or some German philosopher that describes others and the way they come to their conclusions. I just see this as some way to for them to justify their degree or how they spend their time reflecting on what makes the world spin.
To be put in a category equal with another person I have never met but probably has come to the same final conclusion their own way seems arrogant to me. I dont mean you, just the whole "I'm a deeper thinker than you" attitude, from others is offensive.