re; As long as nothing can be proven, neither one way nor the other, religion will not only survive, it will thrive. People will continue to believe. Plain, simple reality is totally out of the question. It is inconceivable and unsupportable.

That may be okay by you but there are many of us for whom reality is not out of the question. At 80 I do not need superstition or hope for some unfathomable future life to keep me going and enjoying what little I now can expect.

Maybe a mutation is already spreading that will make religion unnecessary or impotent particularly if indoctrination of children is recognised for what it is, an genuine evil, and minimised or eliminated by better practices such as ethics classes which improve students IQ by 6-7% and minimise adverse behaviour.

I'm a sucker for anything that might help understand why people are so in the thrall of religious belief, that all rational thought flies out of the window.

So I do like the idea that religious belief has been a survival strategy for our species. Unfortunately I can't actually find justification for the theory within this piece.

For instance, how can both the following be simultaneously true?

“Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent"

and...

"The study found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief... another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates."

Which is it to be? If there is no "animal equivalent" of religious belief, how is it possible to assert that "regions of the brain that we share with apes are involved."

And this seems a little odd, too.

"Dr Persinger suggests that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon..."

...followed closely by...

"...of the 295 reported apparitions studied by the Holy See over the centuries only 12 have been approved"

I would have thought, that the definition of "stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe" as a miracle, should have merited at least a passing comment,

(But in only 4% of cases. How does that work?)

"Religion plays an important psychological role in assisting us to assume the adversities of our earthly lives."

Us?

Some, I agree, find religion fulfils this role for them. But it is a shame that the author did not choose to explore why in many people today it does not.

It would be fair, in that context, to regard a belief in supernatural beings as evolutionarily superfluous.

Like all-over body hair.

An appeal to a nebulous theory about evolutionary advantage, or appeal to tradition, will not shape humans cognition - individually or collectively - that is moving us beyond religion and its distractions
.

So let me get this straight, because humans have sections of the brain that permit belief in a higher deity this disproves the existence of god(s)?!? And therefore all religions are the evolutionary by-product of a drive to explain nature?!? Isn't that a circular argument? There have been many different arguments for and against the existence of god(s) popping up of late, yet many of these follow and fall into the same trap. They attempt to argue that because of something inherent to earth that proves or disproves the existence of god(s), a concept which by its very nature is separate from the earth. This is the exact same argument structure that leads some to claim that because the pyramids are aligned like Orion’s Belt, that is proof that aliens built the pyramids. I admit that I believe that there is a god but I refuse to try and explain that belief using an example of terrestrial origin as I would fall into this trap also. And as far as Foyle's belief in the inherent evil of indoctrination I am reminded of a line from my favourite movie K-PAX "But your people don't listen to your Christ or your Buddha." Maybe it's not the religion that is the problem but the individuals slant on it that is. Afterall lets not forget that the crusades were not organised but a god but by a man.

Pericles

It is not that "all rational thought flies out the window" when someone believes in religion. Just because you may not have strong empirical, measurable and physical evidence for it (although many argue that there is), there are plenty of rational ways to come to an understanding that there must be a higher being. Believing in the existence of God is not irrational.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical in the 90s well worth reading called Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason. He argued that both must be used together in both theological study and in the life of a Christian. Faith builds on reason and does not contradict it. It certainly is a step further, but a metaphysical understanding of the human person and the world around him naturally leads many to believe in a supernatual power.

It is a misunderstanding of many who do not have faith that all the tenets of faith are in the 'mystery' category i.e. there is no human way to understand them (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc). The great majority of Church teaching is actually based on philosophical principles and the bulk of theology rests upon philosophy. It explains why many of the great minds in history have followed philosophical study to their logical conclusion, such as John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to the Catholic faith and will soon be canonised in England.

no wonder so many believe the Scriptures when this idiotic post is the best one can come up with.

That was pretty arrogant Runner. Let's have a conversation, not an immature name calling session eh?

"“Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent"

Dunno 'bout that, my girlfriend's cats worship a great white god which resides in the kitchen and provides sustenance on demand.

My dog thinks I am god.

And the Sulphur Crested cockatoos which invade the garden think they are gods.

There are lots of beliefs that can help to make us happy and docile for a short while: for instance, the belief that I am Bill Gates's heir, or the belief that Megan Fox is just about to ring me up for a hot date. Unfortunately most of these beliefs fail a simple reality check: and religion is no different. The happiness is transitory; the confusion and fear caused by maintaining a mental reality-distortion field to screen out conflicting evidence can last for a lifetime. There are plenty of examples among our regular correspondents.

It is far more important for long-term survival -- not to mention happiness -- that we learn to check our beliefs against reality than that we master the art of wishful thinking.

“Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent, and found in all cultures."

I always knew that animals were brighter than us. After all, what self-respecting animal would believe in mythical gods, life after death, heaven and hell, purgatory, miracles, angels, virgin births, etc.

None!

"the belief that Megan Fox [or Brad Pitt?] is just about to ring me up for a hot date".
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:06:21 PM

.. now that is the art of wishful thinking.

(Perhaps we might meet them in the afterlife?)

ink bot

'Let's have a conversation, not an immature name calling session eh?'

no name calling but just an hilarous attempt in ignoring/denying the Creator with a little pseudo science thrown in.

I recently discovered that this is one subject upon which Sells and I agree, ink blot.

>>It is not that "all rational thought flies out the window" when someone believes in religion.<<

Religious belief and the application of rational, scientific principles are, most definitely, mutually exclusive. They can live and breathe in the same person, but exist in totally different mental realms.

Faith will never disprove science. Nor does science have any relevance in religious belief. They come from different starting points, operate in parallel, and never touch or cross.

>>Believing in the existence of God is not irrational.<<

The primary definition of 'irrational' is "marked by a lack of accord with reason", which covers it quite nicely. You imply that 'irrational', as the opposite of rational, is invariably pejorative.

So while I accept that there are many religious people who are not covered by the secondary, derived definition of "affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity", I maintain that all religious belief is inherently emotionally, as opposed to logically, constructed.

>>John Paul II wrote an encyclical in the 90s well worth reading called Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason. He argued that both must be used together in both theological study and in the life of a Christian<<

"Well he would [say that], wouldn't he?" (Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963)

This is special pleading, given the history of the Catholic Church, with its expedient approach to science over the centuries.

It is also a somewhat dodgy explanation of what he actually said.

"Quod in postrema hac historiae philosophiae parte eminet, pertinet, igitur, ad contemplatam progredientem fidei a philosophica ratione distractionem." Fides et Ratio Caput IV

"This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a growing separation between faith and philosophical reason"

His words. Not mine.

>>It is a misunderstanding of many who do not have faith that all the tenets of faith are in the 'mystery' category i.e. there is no human way to understand them (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc).<<

Ok, I'm listening. How would you describe them?

In scientific terms, that is.

There are lots of problems with this article.

One is the assumption that science can objectively study, categorise and explain belief.

Another is the notion that all religious beleif is equal, the same. Even within particular religions beleifs can vary so widely that some contradict others.

It's rather arrogant to assume that religion, belief, faith - call it what you will - can be explained by evolutionary or biochemical paradigms. If scientists should have learnt anything it is that we don't know much and our paradigms, explanations, or data are shaped by that finite state and therefore subject to both change and inadequacy.

It is true of course that there are people who are delusive or psychologially unstable who "report" experiences that some call "religious", but this does not mean that all "religious" experiences are the same, or indeed that those who are delusive are experiencing anything religious at all.

It might be an idea that these scientists srutinise their own beliefs, presuppositions and assumptions, since these obviously play a part in both their observations of and explanations of "religious" behaviour or experiences.

Pericles

You have misread each of the points I made. I will take you through each one.

1- I never said that faith disproves science. In fact I said the opposite; faith builds on science. They are not mutually exclusive. Scientific research and knowledge is very important and takes us so far, to a point. Faith then takes us further. It requires consent of the will and a 'leap of faith' which is what many find very uneasy. But it is one way of explaining the many things we cannot access through scientific proof, such as love, evil, the problem of suffering in the world etc.

2- I agree with your definition of irrational, and would just add that I am talking about rational as in what is appropriate for a human, who is defined as a 'rational animal'. I stand by the negtative connotation I put on irrational. It is negative in the sense that it is not fitting for a human to act irrationally.

It is shortsighted to say that people with religious beliefs hold those beliefs because of some emotional reason, as opposed to a logical one. There are plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God. Even something as basic as Pascal's wager is a good example. A deeper approach would be Aquinas' 5 ways.

More to come.

3- Re John Paul II, you can't judge the Church with historical hindsight re science. The Church did a lot to progress scientific research in the world. It started universities, it led the way for many centuries. The limitations people in the Church made are understandable given the ultimate limits scientists in the Church had, especially when secular scientists started to progress research further. This was a natural progression, albeit with fallible people making mistakes such as the treatment of Gallileo.

4- Your Latin quote of Fides et Ratio is great, but you show a fleeting reading of the text as you have missed his point. If you read the paragraph before, or even the sentence after, you will understand that he is simply explaining how 'secular' philosophy has driven faith and reason apart. He doesn’t think this is a good thing. In fact he says: “some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.”

It is the absolute, that which is beyond the truth that we know, that is the subject of faith and rather than being in competing realms, faith builds on reason. Theology builds on philosophy.

5- I’m not sure of your final question, but if asking to describe the mysteries in scientific terms, that’s exactly what I am saying cannot be done – hence faith. If you are asking about other tenets of faith, there are plenty that are very agreeable even to people without faith, such as moral teaching, the historical fact of the existence of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection etc.

But I think you need to realise that there are plenty of ‘secular’ fields of study that are not empirical / scientific. They are based on induction, etc. You can’t dissect a brain or a heart and point to the capacity to love, label the conscience, and graph the memory.

Ya think, ink blot?

>>Pericles You have misread each of the points I made<<

I thought they were pretty clear.

>>I never said that faith disproves science. In fact I said the opposite; faith builds on science.<<

That is not "opposite".

"Faith proves science" would be "opposite". Is that what you meant to say?

But my point stands - there is no part of science upon which faith relies (is built on), nor any part of religion upon which science relies.

And this lacks any real meaning:

>>Faith... is one way of explaining the many things we cannot access through scientific proof, such as love, evil, the problem of suffering in the world<<

Because, as you know, there are many explanations that do not require religion as their starting-point.

>>There are plenty of logical reasons for the existence of God<<

"Logical", only in the sense that it is logical for a human to feel the need for an explanation of things that he cannot fully comprehend.

But to fill that void with "God" is illogical.

Profoundly illogical.

>>...albeit with fallible people making mistakes such as the treatment of Gallileo.<<

"Fallible people", ink blot?

It was the entire religious edifice that was fallible.

The need to protect core "beliefs" from the rationality of science leaves only one option: deny it.

In the case of Galileo, for several hundred years.

>>It is the absolute, that which is beyond the truth that we know, that is the subject of faith and rather than being in competing realms, faith builds on reason.<<

I don't consider them to be in "competing" realms either. As I said, they operate separately, with different objectives, and different rules.

But I still can't think of one instance of where "faith builds on reason".

Can you?

>>I’m not sure of your final question<<

You stated that to consider the tenets of your faith ("such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc.") to be "mysteries", is a misunderstanding made by "many who do not have faith".

I simply asked, if it's a misunderstanding to call them "mysteries", how should we categorize them?

The author makes some good arguments for religion as a strategy for dealing with 'earthly woes' and as a natural evolutionary consequence of the presence of higher order thinking. There is definitely a strong psychological component which also ties nicely with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in that context.

It seems a natural progression to seeking answers to those questions for which there is no reasonable explanation. Why are we here? What happens when we die? What is the meaning of life?

The progression and advancements in Science is also a reflection of an enquiring mind but it differs somewhat in that it relies on evidence. Evidence that can be also be later disproved or verified, or adapted to suit later findings - hence an ever-inquring mind.

Religion does not pretend to be evidence based but faith based although there has been some later progression to accept much of the Bible as metaphor rather than taking the written word at primitive face value.

The nature of man and the nature of religion (belief in the supernatural) could be viewed as very much part of the human evolutionary process. It will probably remain with us for some time and there is no reason to believe it will not adapt and become more relevant to modern day thinking. Religion is starting to throw off its primitive shackles - many denominations have already demonstrated this metaphorical adaptation. Perhaps over time some religions will become less deity driven (with God more in the background) and morph into a way of life choice similar to buddhism.

ink blot,

Thanks for your clear (to me) articulation of your world-view position. There are very few posts on this OLO I could identify with - and learn from - more. I can also understand why runner and Pericles disagree, since their positions have been known to me for quite a while.

So if belief in a god is not a mentally induced state stemming from some sort of bodily driven need, why are so many people so easily indoctrinated into the multitude of narrow and rule-specific belief-in-god 'corridors'?

ink blot,

With all due respect, I haven’t seen you present an argument that hasn’t been discredited many times over.

<<[Faith] is one way of explaining the many things we cannot access through scientific proof, such as love, evil, the problem of suffering in the world etc.>>

Faith doesn’t explain anything at all. It simply asserts.

Faith is a term applied to beliefs that have no justification for being held to begin with and thus have no real explanatory power.

<<It is shortsighted to say that people with religious beliefs hold those beliefs because of some emotional reason, as opposed to a logical one.>>

As someone with first-hand experience with religious belief, I can attest to the fact that it is a purely emotional thing, not rational or logical (although this is never realised at the time) as there are no rational logical reasons to start believing in god or accepting religious claims. Some examples...

<<Even something as basic as Pascal's wager is a good example [of logical reasons to believe in god].>>

I’m really surprised you mentioned Pascal’s Wager. I thought all Christians had abandoned it by now due to its fatal flaws. I certainly had when trying to build a case for believing in god.

Pascal’s Wager is a failed bit of reasoning for several reasons. Firstly, it ignores that fact that there are hundreds of alleged gods, so the chances that you’ve chosen the right god and are not angering the real god, are very small. Secondly, it assumes that a god would be fooled by or satisfied with an insincere ‘insurance policy’ form of belief.

There’s what I call the Atheist’s Wager which, assuming that a god would prefer disbelief over worshipping a false god, is a far safer option.

Not that I ever seriously entertain the idea that a god might exist.

<<A deeper approach would be Aquinas' 5 ways.>>

Deeper, but certainly not better. Actually, it’s more like “three ways” since the first three “proofs” are basically the same argument.

Continued...

...Continued

The first three of Aquinas’s “five” proofs are nothing more than God-of-the-Gap arguments from ignorance with special pleading that come from times where we made naive assumptions about cause and effect that we now know to be silly thanks to science.

The fourth argument is absurd, not only because of its assumption that when many things possess a quality, the one that possesses the most of that quality is the creator of the others, but because it presumes to know what god is to begin with.

The fifth argument is scientifically ignorant as it assumes that a designer is necessary when nothing we’ve ever learned about the natural world suggests that this is the case at all.

Whether they be ontological arguments that claim something exists just because it can be conceived; cosmological arguments that assume the universe had a cause and presume to label that cause “god”, or arguments from transcendence that try to pull a swiftie by sneakily switching from ‘logical absolutes’ to just ‘logic’, they all fall down at their premises and make giant, unexplained, unjustified and illogical leaps to a “therefore god” conclusion.

<<It is the absolute, that which is beyond the truth that we know...>>

Anything that is “beyond the truth that we know”, is indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist, and thus any speculation about it is pointless.

<<...there are plenty [of other tenets of faith] that are very agreeable even to people without faith, such as moral teaching, the historical fact of the existence of Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection etc.>>

The historical fact of Jesus?!

I’d like to know who the non-believers are who would consider Jesus to be an historical “fact”. A fact is a verified piece of information and there is nothing “verified” about the existence of the alleged Jesus.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus; we have no writings from him; no carpentry works - nothing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and we have no reliable evidence for Jesus - let alone extraordinary.

Brain scans show that when folks are "talking to God" in their minds, the part that lights up is the part that pertains to ones self. So "God" is just the self projected onto the universe. Is this why folks can generally believe in logic, good and justice, yet when in "religious mode" are capable of any insanity, including murder?
I'd say religion is a survival trait that assists bonding within a community and allows other communities to be de-humanised so that war can be waged without guilt. Persecution of "otherness" certainly seems integral to all Theist religions.
As for the modern, rational, quiet Theist: This is often "God of the Gaps" via childhood indoctrination. A little section of harmless insanity that provides comfort during stressful times. It is not rational to dig up and replace such ideas later in life so they remain as "faith". The fact that most folks stick to the religion of their childhood says that religion is a cultural meme rather then something we consciously select.

These two references give a completely different Understanding of the non-humans as natural Spiritual Contemplatives as compared to us dreadfully sane human beings.

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/literature/face.php

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/literature/observe_learn.php

Plus on the ancient and present time etheric-astral religions

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism.aspx

The principal motive of conventional exoteric religion in its institutional form is crowd control--full stop.

This essay gives a unique critique of the state of what is usually called religion in these times. Essentially a form of individual and collective neurosis, and even psychosis in many right-wing forms.

http://www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html

<religion provides important social, medical, educational and welfare services to its communities with the benediction and co-operation of the State political authorities. Together with school and family, religion is a vector for the moral values that help structure society.>

Religion is symbiotically affiliated with power and always has been; symbiosis of course describes a mutually beneficial relationship. But rather than religion's providing for salubrious society, as the author suggests, it provides palliative care for a chronically ailing society. Nor are its motives in providing "welfare" etc services essentially altruistic; they are adaptive ministrations evolved to meet the needs of an unwritten pact between religion and power. The ordinary religious footsoldiers are no doubt more often than not genuine in their altruism, but this too is merely ideological subscription. History is replete with evidence of religion's adaptable, parasitical relationship with power; it will provide soup kitchens in the streets or bestow God's blessings on military aggression as circumstances dictate.
<it [religion] avoids social unrest and prevents revolutions more efficiently and in a much more acceptable manner than the brutality of armies>
Revolution is just what carcinogenic capitalist culture needs, but thanks to religion the alienated masses meekly accept <their miserable earthly condition>.
I do not believe that science has the faintest idea of the source of religious experience. Indeed, liberal rationalism is also a parasite.

"History is replete with evidence of religion's adaptable, parasitical relationship with power"
(Squeers)

“The subordination of higher religions to states or other secular institutions is a relapse into the ancient dispensation under which religion was an integral part of the total culture of some pre-civilizational society or early civilization, limited in spiritual and geographical range.

But the higher religions will always be bound to strive to keep themselves disengaged from secular social and cultural trammels, because this is an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of their true mission.

This mission is not concerned directly with human beings’ social or cultural relations with each other: its concern is the relation between each individual human being and the trans-human presence of which the higher religions offer a new vision.”
(Arnold Toynbee, “A Study of History, One-Volume Edition, OUP 1972)

Dear George,
having studied theories of history somewhat, I tend to the Hayden White sceptical school. History is just a genre of fiction. I'm especially unimpressed with Toynbee's religious/historical bias; a bare, unsupported assertion that flies in the face of what we know of the various political-governmental infamies religion has been complicit in. Moreover, what does Toynbee mean by "higher religions"? In any case, the "higher" the religion the fowler the stench of both worldly and ecclesiastical corruption, I'd have thought? At least the Amish can't be accused of giving their blessings to machines of war.
Actually existing religions are indefensible for mine; regardless of high-sounding theology (religious experience is another matter), which doesn't absolve them of their real actions or their unconscionable support of villainy.

.

Religion and the State

.

The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt considered that they were gods and their subjects worshiped them as such. Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC), the consul of the Roman Republic and Empire, claimed that he was a direct descendent of Aeneas, the son of the goddess Venus. In Chinese tradition, the legitimacy of kings and emperors was said to be due to a mandate of heaven. Similarly, in Western culture, royalty was deemed invested in the divine right of kings.

These considerations have not completely disappeared in all of the 193 official sovereign states in the world today. The rulers of many nations continue to assume both an earthly and religious role.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example, also has the religious title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. King Abdullah II of Jordan is considered to be a 43rd-generation direct descendant of Muhammad. Akihito of Japan, whose title in Japanese signifies “The Heavenly Emperor”, is the highest authority in the Shinto religion. Margrethe II of Denmark is head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. Elisabeth II, Queen of 16 independent sovereign states, members of the Commonwealth, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.


Though he had no official religious function at the time, the previous President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, was quoted as having confided to the Texas evangelist, James Robinson: “I feel like God wants me to run for President … I know it won’t be easy for me or my family, but God wants me to do it”. He subsequently declared to Abu Mazen, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister: “God told me to strike at Al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”

.

Dear Squeers,

You gave a sweeping description of the role of religion in history that has become standard (“politically correct”?) today. I just offered an alternative by quoting a specialist. I am not a historian but know that Toynbee was controversial not only for this, but also for his approach to civilisations in his huge ”A Study of History” for reasons I can understand but as a non-historian cannot argue for or against Toynbee.

As for Toynbee’s concept of higher religions used in his book, they “are attempts to put individual human souls into direct communion with absolute spiritual Reality, without the mediation of either non-human nature or the human society…”. Of course, this can make some sense only if you accept the existence of an “absolute spiritual Reality” (please don’t ask me to define it). Explicitly, he means apparently Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and possibly the Chinese religions and others, since he recognises 26 civilisations. I agree that Toynbee is best understood - though not necessarily agreed with in all details - from a Christian point of view (see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9038#144777 ).

Having said that, I am grateful to you for bringing up Hayden White, of whom I have known nothing except for the name. I tried to find on the internet where he disagrees explicitly with Toynbee, and found only a paper “Collingwood and Toynbee: Transitions in English Historical Thought."  English Miscellany.  7 (1956): 147-178, that I have no access to. I have access to e.g. http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Domanska,%20Interview%20with%20Hayden%20White.pdf, and I am going to read it.

After all, for a mathematician with a penchant for abstract constructions, anything Meta- is of interest, though I read now that White apparently abandoned his ideas presented in Metahistory.
Thanks again

Dear Banjo,

My problem with your last example is that George W. Bush was an ignorant, unintelligent man who was engineered into the position of President despite his shortcomings.
The fact that a man of so little substance claimed divine guidance for the atrocities committed under his watch is a perfect demonstration in practice of what Squeers referred to as the symbiotic relationship between power and religion.

and yet George Bush had the intelligence to understand that an unborn baby is a person unlike many others who use pseudo science to deny the very obvious in order to appease their seared consciences.

George: <You gave a sweeping description of the role of religion in history that has become standard (“politically correct”?)>

I don't know that my view is standard, George, and it certainly isn't politically correct.
My position is simply that our culture has to change (or collapse) and that our institutions are the pillars that maintain it. Established and pseudo-established (higher) religions play a crucial role in compensating for and rationalising a society's shortcomings, providing members of society with compensation, diversion and legitimacy. This complex functioning, however, is an "organic" adaptation that knows only its own "genuine" truth. Like the individual, the embedded institution (symbiotically adapted and incapable of conceiving a split from its host) is capable of feats of self-deception and rationalisation that serves its material interests. The church is a materialistic institution that merely deals in the ethereal matters that are its reciprocal function. Of course it believes in itself regardless; how could it deny its own life? No institution looks at itself critically; its function is to secure and strengthen its hold, in perpetuity. The same applies to the atheist liberal/humanist/technocratic alternative; they exist within and are adapted to a social/cultural paradigm. Many of the practices developed and enacted under this dispensation are destructive (and self-destructive) in various ways, but again, the institution is symbiotically adapted and serves the host according to irrational dictates, notwithstanding its professed rationalism (in fact another ideology). Examples are legion: technologically exacerbating an already crowded planet; unsustainable and untenable economics, weapons of mass destruction etc.
Western capitalist culture is spiritually and materially untenable, yet it is supported "on those very terms", by our spiritual and ostensibly rationalist institutions; neither institution, nor their respective congregations will look critically and impartially at their practices. They just go on adapting and rationalising.

Dear Banjo,
you're as elusive as ever; not sure where you stand?

.

Dear Poirot,

.

"... George W. Bush was an ignorant, unintelligent man who was engineered into the position of President despite his shortcomings."

Perhaps he was simply hiding his light under a bushel.

He spent his final high school years at the Phillips Academy, reputed to be one of the toughest high schools in America. He went on to obtain a BA in history at Yale and an MBA at Harvard.

George dubya is the only U.S. President in history to have earned an MBA.

He then became a fighter pilot in the US Airforce.

In 1998 he was the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms. In his second term, he promoted faith-based organisations and enjoyed high approval ratings. He proclaimed June 10, 2000 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day on which he urged all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need.

He was elected 43rd president of the United States in January 2001 and re-elected in 2004 for a further four year term.

In 2000 and again in 2004, Time magazine named George W. Bush as its Person of the Year, a title awarded to someone who the editors believe "has done the most to influence the events of the year".

Bush's accent, his vacations on his Texas ranch, and his penchant for country metaphors contributed to his folksy, American cowboy image. It has been suggested that this was an active choice, a way of distinguishing himself from Northeastern intellectuals and anchoring himself to his Texas roots.

If he really was the "ignorant" and "unintelligent man" you say he was, Poirot, he must have been a genius.

.

Dear Banjo,

I think you're right that there must have been some sort of "genius" at work when a man such as George W. Bush was capable of attaining the highest office in the most powerful country in the world - trouble is, I don't think it was his genius.
I have no idea how he achieved his academic qualifications as he came over as grossly inarticulate, cliched and vacant a good deal of the time. I've never met or witnessed anyone of superior intelligence look as inane as he...in fact, I suspect that a few strings might have been pulled to help him along the academic road - after all, he was a future president in the making.
He appeared to me to be a particularly ignorant and unintelligent man.

I'm with you, Poirot, and a great many others who consider George W an ignorant (and dangerous) fool. Of course it depends how we measure ignorance---which isn't want of knowledge but want of understanding---and intelligence. Personally, I can't square intelligence with conviction; apart from these terms being oxymoronic, the latter is always derived from an existing intelligence based on social reality, whether this condone cannibalism in a primitive culture, a hanging judge in Texas, or exploitation under capitalism.
Intelligence is striving to think independently of an established conceptual context.

Dear Squeers,

I've found an article that examines the opinion of one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard Business School. He is of a similar opinion, and says that George Dubya wasn't quite as dumb as he seemed, only badly brought up (ignorant).
It pretty much confirms what I thought. Here is the link - it's two pages long.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/16/tsurumi

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote:

"Dear Banjo,
you're as elusive as ever; not sure where you stand?"

As often, Squeers, I both sympathise and agree with you.

Experience has taught me that life is not only evolutive but also immensely complex. I do my best to follow the facts as and when they become known.

Certitudes, I have none, beliefs and opinions, few.

The acute awareness of my ignorance obliges me to be modest in expressing any ideas and intuitions I might have on whatever subject.

I hope that answers your question.

.

Squeers,
I just presented an alternative view to yours, standard or not. Toynbee in the quote I gave does not directly contradict the facts you mention - he says the subordination is a “relapse”, higher religions will “be bound to strive to keep themselves disengaged” - only the sweeping generalisations: Toynbee or not, there are many examples where a religion was in opposition - not symbiosis - to the political system, e.g. the Communist world I grew up in, or many other examples from history where this or that religion was “striving to keep itself disengaged from subordination” to the political system.

I read carefully the paragraph, where you criticise intitutions as such, religion as such, Christianity, the (Catholic?) Church, and perhaps other things that are in this or that way related to each other but not the same thing. Somehow it reminds me of the Marxist/Marx-Leninist criticism of the Catholic Church, Christianity and religion in one go, although there are arguments (for and) against the Catholic Church, that do not apply to Christianity as such, arguments (for and) against Christianity that do not apply to other religions, etc.

I certainly think there is more to what you wrote than to what I have been taught by my Marx-Leninist teachers, only I found it hard to extract separate arguments and insights from that tangle of semi-related assertions.(ctd)

(ctd)
>>Western capitalist culture is spiritually and materially untenable<<
Maybe this old Marxist maxim is right, maybe not. However, if you claim that the house I have been living in is “untenable”, and I shall agree with your criticism, I might concede that it needs repairs, but will not let you knock it down unless you can convince me that what you want to build instead is realistic and will be at least as livable as this one. Lenin did that but he could not convince the inhabitants that their new house was more livable than the one he knocked down, not to mention the other house in the neighbourhood that underwent only gradual, and often incomplete, reparations.

Now it seems to some of us that the demolition work is being applied also to this other house - what remains of the West, its cultural identity and spiritual roots - without anybody being sure what is going to replace it, whether this post-Christian, post-spiritual West (or the globalised world built on this new West) will be more viable than the one being destroyed. (Whether in this demolition act the religious fundamentalists are a reaction to militant atheists or vice versa is here a chicken-and-egg question.)

I know only that I am too old to live to see this demolition completed, or to experience (suffer?) the new - “despiritualised“, if that is what the outcome will be - brave new world to replace it.

Dear Banjo,
that sounds very much like my own position.

Dear George,
I don't want to appear dogmatic and believe in exceptions as much as rules. Will give a considered response to your post as soon as I can.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote:

"and yet George Bush had the intelligence to understand that an unborn baby is a person unlike many others who use pseudo science to deny the very obvious in order to appease their seared consciences".

George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States.

It was reported that in some cases lawyers were under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or were drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not "obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel's wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep."

According to a report published by The Chicago Tribune in June 2000, in one-third of the cases, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.

In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who - based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past - predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.

Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials.

Asked about the Tribune study, Governor Bush said, "We've adequately answered innocence or guilt" in every case. The defendants, he said, "had full access to a fair trial."

.

.

Dear Runner, (continued)

.

Prior to legalization, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions. Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestations is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is 11 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

According to the WHO, of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million take place in countries where abortion is prohibited by law.

In countries where abortion remains unsafe it is a leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 78,000 of the 600,000 annual pregnancy-related deaths worldwide.

Approximately 219 women die worldwide each day from an unsafe abortion.

Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health.

Pregnancy and childbirth comport major risks for our female partners. The opinions which weigh most heavily in the balance are those which entail risk of life and death for those who express them.

That is neither your case nor mine, Runner.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"Lenin did that but he could not convince the inhabitants that their new house was more livable than the one he knocked down, not to mention the other house in the neighbourhood that underwent only gradual, and often incomplete, reparations."

You mention Lenin but you could also have mentioned Castro and Allende and why not Mao, though it could be argued that the "house" of Mao is still being refurbished and might possibly be worth considering as a long term investment.

In relation to the "west wing" of the world establishment, you observe:

"Whether in this demolition act the religious fundamentalists are a reaction to militant atheists or vice versa is here a chicken-and-egg question."

It seems to me there is more in the hen house than just chickens and eggs.

Present day fundamentalist are not so much reacting to atheists as they are to "western imperialism" (Al-Qaida) and all other religions as well as non-fundamentalist practitioners of their own faith.

.

Dear Banjo,

I agree that there are many things I could have mentioned but did not. I know Lenin‘s teachings about changing the whole (Western) world. I do not know of Castro’s or Allende’s comparable ambitions. And without Lenin there would probably be no Mao or Stalin, who - as we were told at school - stood on Lenin’s shoulders. (Hence the joke: when Stalin died he came to hell and was submersed in a boiling muck up to his hips. When Hitler, who was sunk up to his neck, complained, Lucifer silenced him by saying Stalin was standing on Lenin’s shoulders.)

Fundamentalists within the West (e.g. USA), that I was talking about as demolishing it, are mostly Christians who take the Bible literally and attack those whom they think - rightly or wrongly - that they have to defend it from. And vice versa, militant atheists I had in mind are those who think that they can defend reason and a peaceful coexistence of many opinions and cultures in a secular society by attacking Christianity as such, (or Islam as such although, here they are often outdone by Christian fundamentalists) or even religion as such, thus a priori alienating many, mostly peaceful and decent, members of the society.

My impression was that in the last decade or two both these extreme camps within traditional West have grown in numbers, and that that they feed on each other, irrespective of how one sees the chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Dear George,
I've referred above to "established and pseudo established" religions as being involved in symbiotic relations, forming part of what Althusser called "Ideological State Apparatuses". I'm not referring to ideological upstarts; I gave the Amish as example of a benign religion apropos the state. But all religions are intent on winning hearts and minds within a designated spectrum, no? Of course they defend their ambition as God’s work, but I’m sceptical. Christianity was of course once a mere contender itself, in imperial Rome, eventually forming an international and utterly corrupt hegemony, only compromised (actually bifurcated) with the popularising Reformation, both strains going on to enforce compliance and invade and colonise foreign cultures in attempts to save (enslave) the world with their ideology, no? When it can no longer rule in its own right, religion is content in opposition, complement to the prevailing power structure. We see it now with the Pope in Britain; notice he doesn’t criticise the system, which is busy making every debauchery profitable. Notice he doesn’t mind Italian government being affiliated with the Mafia (God-fearing Catholics after all). No, he criticises those who refuse to swallow the antidote, the absolution on offer, as well as the diagonal nod, and all the other pork-barrelling, eternal life etc. Atheism is anathema to the church, just as anarchy is to government. But Catholicism has no such temporal concerns, does it? It’s in the business of saving souls and is genuinely troubled at the spectacle of so many doomed atheists. The atheists btw are a great decoy away from the church’s institutional paedophilia (and other sins), and governments’ perpetual economic crises. Government and church are as thick as thieves (so make the atheists scapegoats!) and if anyone dares to criticise this marriage made in heaven, invoke Stalin, Mau and co as their comrades. I’ve had quite enough of that tactic on OLO. The most valuable thing about Marx is his compelling criticism of capitalism (indeed, he had no real vision for post-capitalism, only an ideal). But capitalism is beyond reproach; so long as you do penance and support the church!

Dear Squeers,

Your embittered paragraph, where you focus on Christianity and the Pope, made more sense to me than the one I referred to as a tangle.

You can criticise the Church‘s role in HISTORY but you have to keep in mind the historical context, when nobody, neither the Church nor its contemporary adversaries had the luxury of hindsight that we all enjoy today. And you can criticise the PRESENT state of Christianity, in particular the Pope.

In both cases there are arguments that will support your criticism, as well as those that will contradict you. However, you have to KEEP these two cases, two kinds of criticism, APART.

On the side of history I do not want to contradict you, yes the Church was also after “secular”, political power, and used it to spread and maintain its “hold over souls”. However, I do not know of a present-day country (except for Vatican) where Catholicism is THE state religion (although in some countries Christian churches still enjoy certain privileges, apparently on their way out, as remnants from the past).

>>But all religions are intent on winning hearts and minds within a designated spectrum, no?<<
So are ideologies, political parties, Dawkins or anybody who is “proselytizing“ a point of view with or without political ambitions.

>>When it can no longer rule in its own right, religion is content in opposition, complement to the prevailing power structure.<<
What else would you suggest they should do within a democratic system except to be “content in opposition”? Work against the democratic system in support of a totalitarian alternative? (Christianity, especially Catholics, within Communist countries certainly did not “complement the prevailing power structure“.) (ctd)

(ctd)
>> the Pope in Britain; notice he doesn’t criticise the system <<
Would you really think he, as an official guest of the UK, should have criticised the system of those who invited him? Are you familiar with Benedict’s encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” (see e.g. the comment http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/July/Popes-Remarks-on-Economy-Advocate-Socialism/) or “Centesimus Annus“ of his predecessor?

>>he doesn’t mind Italian government being affiliated with the Mafia<<
How do you know? Do you have a quote, where he says he does not mind?

Atheism, as some on this OLO argue, is simply “lack of belief”. So is it so surprising that somebody who sees himself as a defender of such “belief“ will reason and warn against this lack? There are many other fields of human enquiry providing insights, the lack of which could be argued to be detrimental to the proper functioning of a society, even if those arguments are not universally persuasive.

Dear George,
I'm all for keeping matters in context; I believe others are far more guilty of not doing so than I am. However, I'm talking about the trans-historical influence of the church.
<I do not know of a present-day country (except for Vatican) where Catholicism is THE state religion (although in some countries Christian churches still enjoy certain privileges, apparently on their way out, as remnants from the past)>
There are plenty of countries where Catholicism (the "universal" church, a travelling road-show) and other "Great" religions are "pseudo-established"; where no matter what the break-up of believer/unbeliever, the institution is ideologically and ethically influential. Though I certainly concede your point that: <So are ideologies, political parties, Dawkins or anybody who is “proselytizing“ a point of view with or without political ambitions.> (indeed I also condemn scientism above). Yet this in fact validates my argument; all are contesting the ideological ground WITHIN a rotten system. How is the decadent Catholic church representative, now or ever, of the actually radical teachings of Jesus?
The Pope should be criticising the system that all countries are forced to bow to: capitalism, a system of barbarous exploitation, destructiveness and disparities that shouldn't be uttered in the same breath with "democracy".
The Pope, and Dawkins, should be arguing for sustainable, equitable, inclusive and modest societies dedicated to intelligent, rich and fulfilling lives, rather than vicious devotion to the universal profit motive, and the ideal of maximal wealth--which is the real dispensation we all live under. By challenging ethical values within a decadent culture he is, in effect, shoring it up, selling snake oil; the church's symbiotic role.

Squeers,

Your last six lines. The current pope invariable does critize about the extremes of capitalism and the disparities of wealth in society, materialism, etc and concern for the dispiritualisation in secular societies and its extreme atheists. Sounds like you have never heard or read anything that the Pope has been espousing.

Forgot to say Hi George!

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

“I agree that there are many things I could have mentioned but did not. I know Lenin‘s teachings about changing the whole (Western) world. I do not know of Castro’s or Allende’s comparable ambitions.”

Communism, like Catholicism, posits its doctrine as having universal application for the benefit of mankind. Castro and Allende were as much inspired by Marxist philosophy as Lenin and implemented communism in their respective countries, though Allende was not a member of the Chilean communist party.

You went on to explain:

“Fundamentalists within the West (e.g. USA), that I was talking about as demolishing it, are mostly Christians who take the Bible literally and attack those whom they think - rightly or wrongly - that they have to defend it from. And vice versa, militant atheists I had in mind are those who think that they can defend reason and a peaceful coexistence of many opinions and cultures in a secular society by attacking Christianity as such, (or Islam as such although, here they are often outdone by Christian fundamentalists) or even religion as such, thus a priori alienating many, mostly peaceful and decent, members of the society. “

Perhaps it could be considered that proselytism as well as militant protest and advocacy are expressions of religiosity. Paradoxically, this phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the anti-religious domains of communism and atheism.

Extremism is the cancer of society. The neoplasm has its roots in what I call convictions and what you, George, prefer to name “worldview presuppositions”. Beliefs, particularly firm beliefs or convictions, are socially carcinogenic and as such, should be endorsed only after critical analysis and the serious consideration of possible alternatives.

Regrettably, the risk management practice of nations does not include measures curtailing the proselytism of minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment. Despite the ardent duty of the State to reduce the carcinogenic social risks generated by beliefs and convictions resulting in extremism.

Such measures would have the added advantage of eliminating the risk of endemic paedophilia which currently gangrenes the Catholic Church.

.

.

An irresponsible Pope ?

.

The Roman Catholic Church must surely be one of the largest multinational organisations in the world.

Some say it was founded by Jesus. Others say it was not, that Jesus lived and died a Jew.

The former insist that Jesus designated his apostle, Simon, as Peter, the "Rock", and on this rock He would build His Church. The authority conferred by Jesus on Peter is known as the "power of the keys", full, supreme and universal authority.

They say there has been an unbroken succession of popes from Peter to Benedict XVI, the 265th successor.

The Pope appoints bishops and cardinals, who elect his successor. He is the final arbiter of both administrative and doctrinal disputes.
While doctrinal matters are normally resolved by an ecumenical council (a meeting of all of the bishops of the Church), such a council can only be called by the Pope, and its decisions are not official until confirmed by the Pope.

It does not seem unreasonable to consider that the Pope is invested in moral and legal obligations concomitant with his post like the head of any other multinational organisation.

This, however, has never been tested under any domestic or international law for the simple reason that, unlike any other corporate magnate, the Pope benefits from diplomatic immunity as head of the Vatican State.

It is not without a certain cynicism that Benedict XVI recently declared that he preferred divine justice to human justice (cf the homily he pronounced last Palm Sunday).

This is a radical departure from the example set by Jesus who, so we are told, willingly assumed full heavenly and earthly responsibility for the sins of mankind by suffering an atrocious death on the cross, despite the fact that he could in no way be held personally liable for any of it.

Benedict XVI has a number of lawyers hot on his heels over the worldwide paedophilia scandal but it is more than evident that he does not envisage following Jesus' example.

.

Dear Squeers,

>>I'm talking about the trans-historical influence of the church<<
Any institution that lasted and evolved (and is still evolving) over two millennia would have necessarily exerted some “trans-historical influence“, its nature and intensity changing in time.

>>There are plenty of countries where Catholicism … (is) "pseudo-established"; where … the institution is ideologically and ethically influential.<<
If you define “pseudo-established” as being influential, then also IT, science, arts, and many other things are “pseudo-established”, though not “ideologically and ethically”. In case of Christianity in the West, notably Catholicism, this influence has been diminishing, which is OK provided the goal is pluralistic and not eliminative secularism (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10799#179660) for the difference). I cannot see what is wrong with that in a democratic society.

>>How is the decadent Catholic church representative of the actually radical teachings of Jesus?<<
If you ask “How is the decadent Mr XY representative of this or that“ do you really expect XY to reply?

Do you really think the Pope calling this (Westminster) system (that the West has arrived at after centuries of trying many alternatives, often totalitarian) “a system of barbarous exploitation, destructiveness and disparities“ would meet wider approval than when he keeps to his criticism of the moral shortcomings of a system that certainly needs improvement?

Can you quote the Pope (or Dawkins for that matter) “arguing … for … (a) vicious devotion to the universal profit motive, and the ideal of maximal wealth“ ?

One thing is to disagree with this or that policy or teaching of the Catholic Church or the Pope - you are certainly not alone on this - another things is to use emotionally loaded (to say the least) language to express your disagreement, thus challenging the other side to respond in the same way. I think by now you know I do not play that game.

I think our exchange of opinions was more constructive when we stuck to (abstract) philosophy.

Dear Banjo,

It is a well know fact that Lenin copied a lot from the organisation of the Catholic Church. You are right that Castro and Allende implemented, whatever they implemented “in their respective countries” only; this is all I was claiming.

I do not know what is your personal experience with life in a country where the power was solely in the hands of the Catholic Church or the Communist Party respectively. As for myself, I never lived in Vatican but grew up in a Stalinist country.

>> Beliefs, particularly firm beliefs or convictions, are socially carcinogenic and as such, should be endorsed only after critical analysis and the serious consideration of possible alternatives.<<
I have “critically analysed and seriously considered possible alternatives” of e.g. Dawkins’ beliefs and do not endorse them. Nevertheless, I maintain he has the right to hold them, and do not regard them as socially carcinogenic. Is it too much to require that also those who do not endorse my - and other Christians’ - beliefs tolerate them similarly?

>> curtailing proselytism of minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment<<
What in particular would you like to curtail? I think that such a minor is equally “incapable of discernment“ irrespective of whether he/she is being taught that there is a loving God or that there is no such God.

I agree no child should be educated to do anything harmful to others, or to deny facts endorsed by science, but that is a different story, unrelated to “beliefs”.

The abuse of minors by many educators is a fact. Another sad fact is that Christian, especially Catholic, educators are not an exemption. And a third fact is the abuse of this abuse in the form of many non-sequiturs.

As for your list of standard beliefs about the Catholic Church and the Pope, there are those among us who see them as oversimplifications or worse. I think you know that. So please excuse me if I do not see any point in commenting on them again, or even attempting to change your mind.

The whole campaign currently underway against so-called militant-atheists and secularists is a malicious and reactionary furphy. The fact that there is some anger out there directed at corrupt religious corporations is defensible given that many of these free thinkers are belatedly waking up, after a long sleep, to the nonsense that's been fed them for centuries.
I'm delighted to note that since I suggested above that the Pope was engaging, in Britain, in diversionary tactics, I've seen this speaech given by Richard Dawkins, which backs me up:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520894-richard-dawkins-at-protest-the-pope-rally-in-london-sept-2010

It's a very hard-hitting speech that may offend some people, but rather than militant atheism, I would call it justifiable outrage at the Pope's, and his Cardinal's, recent ex-cathedra pronouncements. The hypocisy is rank.

Dear Squeers,

Today I watched for two-hours the ceremony and speech by the Pope in Birmingham’s Cofton Park, dedicated to John Henry Newmann, so I am now grateful for your link where I could watch another ceremony celebrated by Dawkins, and “dedicated” to the Pope.

The different personalities of the celebrants, the different intellectual levels of their speeches as well as the different behavior of the audiences, speak legions. One could feel sorry for the Pope because of his physical frailty, but also for Dawkins for selling himself, his atheism, so cheaply.

Dawkins obviously does not understand what I wrote above, namely, that if atheism is defined as simply “lack of belief”, he should not be surprised that somebody who sees himself as a defender of such “belief“ will reason and warn against this lack.

Dear George,

It would appear that Pope Benedict is now adopting the dubious tactic of twisting the horror of Nazi atrocities into a rope upon which to hang atheists....beyond the pale, don't you think?

Dear Poirot,

I do not think the Pope used a language comparable to yours.

As I keep on saying, if atheism is “lack of (religious) belief” then it must apply to Hitler’s case since in distinction to other killers who did not suffer this “lack” - Crusaders, past and present Islamist terrorists or other religious fanatics - he certainly did not expect a reward for what he did in an afterlife, nor could a punishment there deter him. This belief in no-reward-nor-punisment-in-afterlife makes him an atheist, at least as much as his baptism makes him a Catholic.

You apparently think that an atheist is less likely to commit atrocities, the Pope (and I) think the same about being a Christian. This is not something you can verify or falsify - “less likely” means exactly that - so I would say that both you and the Pope are entitled to your opinions.

As an example that not everybody shares your impression of his visit to UK, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313539/POPES-UK-VISIT-Benedict-XVIs-parting-message-flies-home.html, or the article here by the dissident Catholic ex-priest censored by Rome, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11002.

Dear George,

Pope Benedict did use different language to mine. Here's what he said:

"Even in our 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...As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the twentieth century."

Linking atheism to Hitler and Nazi Party atrocities is obviously a calculated move.
How would you, or the Pope or anybody for that matter, know what drove Hitler. How do know he wouldn't have expected a reward in the "next life"?
It's one thing for the Pope to try and distance the church from such atrocities, but entirely another when he deliberately seeks to tie atheism to them.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"You are right that Castro and Allende implemented, whatever they implemented “in their respective countries” only; this is all I was claiming."

What I meant to say was that Communism and catholicism both have universal ambitions ("workers of the world, unite!" for one and catholic = universal for the other).

I also meant to point out that Lenin was not the only head of State to ambition the exportation of his revolutionary ideals.

Castro extended support to marxist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America. On Cuba's role in Angola, Nelson Mandela is said to have remarked "Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice."

Allende become something of an icon in South America though he did not have time to export his (democratic) Chilean "revolution".

You observe:

"I think that such a minor is equally “incapable of discernment“ irrespective of whether he/she is being taught that there is a loving God or that there is no such God."

What I am suggesting is that parents, school and church should refrain from dispensing any form of religious or atheistic education. The State's action could consist in passing legislation to outlaw such education dispensed by school and church to minors and other vulnerable members of society incapable of discernment.

There is absolutely no reason why any such action should prevent a God or Gods from continuing to love his, her or their subjects, if indeed, He, She or They exist.

Morality, civism, the respect of others, a sense of values are elements that could advantageously replace religious and atheistic education of minors and other vulnerable persons.

There is absolutely no reason why any such restrictions should apply to consenting adults who are in full possession of their intellectual faculties.

As regards militant atheists such as Dawkins, I take a keen interest in what he has to say but I keep my distance. So far, I see nothing to criticise in what he has to say. However, I see him becoming the centre of a fiery campaign which will inevitably give rise to more extremism.

.

Dear Banjo,
"militant atheism" is just an inflammatory phrase religious interests use. Dawkins isn't "militant", and I don't know of any who are.

I agree with nearly everything you say; the one point of difference I have is that our rich western cultures are untenable and unconscionable, and this is what religion functions to maintain.

Judging by your other comments, you ought to look at the work of Takis Fotopoulis, who has some excellent ideas for "inclusive" civic democracy. He's also a rarity in that he's one of the few thinkers who conceives a sustainable new order without Marx's thought.
Here's the Wiki link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takis_Fotopoulos but there are journal articles and books that shouldn't be hard to find online.
Dear George,
I don't see atheism as merely "lack of belief", suggesting an impoverished world-view, and I doubt Dawkins does. Atheist simply means "not theistic", which means a nearly infinite intellectual/philosophical vista is on offer. The impoverished view of the theist has no such horizon. You must see that a caring atheist "will reason and warn against this lack" of perspective?

Belief is "mental starch".

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for the quote confirming that the Pope related Nazism (not to atheism in general but) to “atheist extremism”. Most decent people disapprove of any extremism, whether associated with atheism, Christianity, Islam or what you have.

There are good, very good, bad and very bad people among those who believe there IS NO God they are responsible to, as there are good, very good, bad and very bad people among those who believe there IS such a God. Extremists are usually of the “very bad” kind in both cases.

I would not have objected had you written that you “reflected on the sobering lessons of Christian extremism“.

>>How would you …, know what drove Hitler <<
I could not know that, only conclude from what he wrote and said that he did expect neither a reward in “heaven“, nor punishment in “hell“ for what he caused, hence “lacked (religious) belief”.

Dear Banjo,

There have been movements, religious or not, throughout history that had “universal ambitions”. Today some people associate such ambitions with exporting democracy. As for Lenin, Castro and Allende we would have to leave it to historians to decide the thoughts and actions of which one of them was more influential in dividing the world into political East and West during the Cold War, that I was originally referring to.

>>parents, school and church should refrain from dispensing any form of religious or atheistic education. <<

If atheism is simply “lack of belief (in God)” how could an education be atheistic, i.e. built on this lack? It can only prevent a child from gaining an inside knowledge of any religious (there are many of them) way of looking at life.

You can educate a child in mathematics, a foreign language, music etc. or you can prevent a child from receiving such education, leaving it to him/her to find out when he/she grows up whether he/she can make use of these insights or skills. I am certainly glad I learned to understand mathematics, listen to classical music, or speak foreign languages, when I was young enough to learn easily.

There are those who acquired these skills in their adult age. Similarly, there are adult converts. These are often more convincing (to both fellow believers as well as to unbelievers), but sometimes also more intolerant, than those who managed to preserve and adjust their childhood-acquired faith to an adult level.

Of course, there are many people who received their RE from overburdened parents or incompetent teachers (or both), leading to the “loss of their faith”.

>>The State's action could consist in passing legislation to outlaw such education<<
As I said, I grew up in a Stalinist country, so I experienced not atheistic, but explicitly anti-theistic education, but even there the Authorities would not have dared to “outlaw“ education by e.g. Christian parents, only discriminate against it.

Dear Squeers,
Atheism defined as “lack (or absence) of belief” is not my invention, I have learned it on this OLO. Sometimes to clarify it (for myself) I add “religious“ in parethhesses, since I agree that e.g. Dawkins believes many things, he actually states it explicitly. In http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#175543 I wrote:

I was just trying to avoid the word “beliefs” because some atheists do not like it. Not so e.g. Richard Dawkins: “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (The God Delusion).

I don’t think you would want to continue a debate if somebody called your world-view:

an “impoverished view (that) has no … horizon“ of “nearly infinite intellectual/philosophical vista on offer“ as had by those with alternate views,

or that you must see that a “caring“ Christian "will reason and warn against (your) lack of perspective“,

or that the assumptions on which you build your world-view are a "mental starch".

Like Poirote I was horrified at the Pope's recent lecture where in a desperate attempt to admonish atheism he stooped to a comparison with Hitler.

Why are so many theists prepared to condone such an analogy no matter how the defence is phrased; and why are people unwilling to understand that a non-belief in the supernatural does not mean a disbelief in morals and values based on a common human connection and a natural desire to do good.

If you truly believe man was made in God's image why is that image so negative and disdainful that would lead one to believe that humans are incapable of human compassion and feeling.

Dear George,

"Thanks for the quote confirming that the Pope related Nazism (not to atheism in general but) to 'atheist extremism'."

Really....I believe the Pope deliberately inserted the term "atheist", connecting it quite snugly to the word "extremism" to give it added impetus. why couldn't he just have said "extremism" - most people would have drawn their own conclusions on his sentiments.

Dear Poirot,

>>why couldn't he just have said "extremism" - most people would have drawn their own conclusions on his sentiments.<<
Why cannot people who criticise e.g. “pedophile priests“, just say “pedophiles”? I think you know the answer. Yes, the Pope wanted to draw attention to the fact that these extremists - probably the worst of their kind in the century - were atheists, the same as in the above example one wants to draw attention to the fact that these pedophiles were priests.

Let me add to your (and Pelican’s) “whys” also this one:

Why can Catholics accepts that SOME priests were pedophiles, inquisitors, Crusaders etc, but atheists cannot accept that SOME atheists were Nazis, Communists etc.? It is the generalisations (to ALL Catholic priests, ALL atheists etc) that are objectionable.

Many (not all) people think that there was a correlation between celibacy and the pedophile acts, and the Pope (and many others, again not everybody) think that there was a correlation between unbelief in God as the Highest moral authority, and the Nazi crimes.

I think both opinions have arguments in favour as well as against, and have the right to be expressed. And, of course, one can draw all sorts of conclusions from both, including oversimplified ones.

Come, come, George,

Surely you're not suggesting that such reasonable souls as Pelican and myself don't accept that some Nazis were atheists....that would be silly. Of course we accept that. No doubt, Pelican would agree that there was probably a mix between Christians and those who do not subscribe to a theistic belief who made up the bulk of the foot soldiers.
We are arguing against the Pope singling out atheists as the driving, if not the only, force behind Nazism. We all know that these things are far more complex than most people will admit - there are myriad reasons for the rise of a monster like Hitler. The Pope knows that, yet he took a cheap shot to bolster the standing of the church knowing full well he would offend many peaceful responsible people who identify themselves as not theistic.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You write:

["militant atheism" is just an inflammatory phrase religious interests use. Dawkins isn't "militant", and I don't know of any who are.]

My 1982 edition of The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives an interesting definition of the word "militant":

"engaged in warfare (Church militant); combative, agressively active"

In an interview with Thomas Bass (an American writer and professor in literature and history) for a book published in 1994 ("Reinventing the future: conversations with the world's leading scientists") Dawkins is quoted as saying:

" I am a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of active hostility toward religion. I certainly was hostile toward it at school, from the age of about sixteen onwards. I mellowed a bit in my twenties and thirties. But I'm getting more militant again now.

It was a mind-blowing experience to discover Darwinism and realize there were alternative explanations for all the questions with traditional religious answers. I became irritated at the way the rligious establishment has a stranglehold over this kind of education. Most people grow up and go through their lives without ever really understanding Darwinism. They spend enormous amounts of time learning church teachings. This annoys me, out of a love of truth. To me religion is very largely an enemy of truth."

... duly noted ...

Might I add that, in my view, the action of Richard Dawkins is just as honourable as that of a priest or a member of a political party.

It is intolerance and extremism that poses problem.



.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"If atheism is simply “lack of belief (in God)” how could an education be atheistic, i.e. built on this lack? It can only prevent a child from gaining an inside knowledge of any religious (there are many of them) way of looking at life."

Darwinism rather than creationism may perhaps be qualified by some people as "atheistic" education.

" ... I experienced not atheistic, but explicitly anti-theistic education ... "

I accept your term of "anti-theistic" education. I therefore suggest that the legislator should outlaw "religious and ant-theistic" education of minors and other vulnerable persons by school and church.

" ... I grew up in a Stalinist country ... but even there the Authorities would not have dared to “outlaw“ education by e.g. Christian parents, only discriminate against it."

I do not suggest the legislator should outlaw "religious and anti-theistic" education of minors by parents. I do not suggest lt should be "descriminated against" either.

The legal restriction I preconise would apply to school and church only.

In my view, the State has no place in the parent/child relationship unless the child is in physical, moral or psychological danger.

.

George my response to your post is similar to Poirot's.

The difference is that many atheists (I cannot speak for all atheists - we are not an organisation) accept that only SOME Catholic Priests are pedophiles - we are not suggesting that a calling to priesthood must automatically make one a pedophile.

We also don't accuse Catholicism of teaching pedophilia as a tenet of its religion, and by association all Catholics must be pedophiles. What Christians and atheists have done together is to call for more accountability within the Catholic leadership and to be true to those principles of which they espouse. That does not deserve the label of 'ophobia'. It is too easily to dismiss legitimate concerns by labelling or by taking offence to phrases like "pedophile priests". The guilty pedophiles within the Catholic Church were priests and it should not be forgotten in the same way that the Nazi regime should not be forgotten for it's inhumane treatment of the Jewish people.

The reference by the Pope to Hitler or Nazis appeared to be a defensive response to fear of losing 'market-ground' (excuse the phrase) by associating the 'practice' of atheism to evil doings. It is both dishonest and divisive.

Both theists and non-theists are capable of doing wrong and it has nothing to do with a lack of religion or the adherence to a religion (unless that religion incites killing in the name of their God) but responsibility lies totally and wholly with the individual.

It is not wrong to ask why the Catholic Church did nothing to protect its parishioners - the Church by nature, is in a position of authority and with that comes responsibility.

The best we can all hope for is that these harsh lessons learnt will be taken on board and right will be done.

Dear Banjo,
my 1993 Shorter Oxford says a little more, but I concede the point--and emphasise the point that language is wonderfully rhetorical and frighteningly imprecise (considering we predicate our lives and thought upon it).
<Might I add that, in my view, the action of Richard Dawkins is just as honourable as that of a priest or a member of a political party.>
I would say just as "dishonourable"; I don't think the priests or the secular priests have honourable motives.
Conceded too that extremism is regrettable; but if we're talking extreme polemics (I deplore all violence), extremism is the only way to make oneself heard within the bland intellectual landscape of modernity.
It is indifference, not extremism, that poses the problem.

Dear George,
you are a sensitive plant!
As I've intimated elsewhere, I have the greatest respect for your learning and your experience, but debate takes precedence. I do not single you out for having an impoverished horizon (you seem to have an expansive horizon, despite your self-imposed delimitations), I was merely paraphrasing you back to yourself. As you must recall, I've been a critic of Dawkins myself, for constructing straw men.
I do see belief as "mental starch", though the metaphor belongs to E M Forster.
I see the church as little different to any other corporation, except that some, like Catholicism, enjoy an unfair advantage in government patronage and protectionism. I say float all religions on the stock market and let the competition in, that would be much more in keeping with our modern ethos, no?

Come, come, Poirot,

I agree that these things are far more complex than the emotion-laden utterances of Pope’s supporters or opposers would indicate. (If I have the numbers right, in non-Catholic London this relation was 100,000 to 15-20,000 during his visit there).

I never wrote of “some Nazis being atheists“ but rather that “some (extremist) atheists were Nazis“, although I agree that this did not reflect faithfully what the Pope meant. This is how he explained the correlation:

“Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason … can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.”

What he apparently indicated by his “suggestion” - though neglected to say explicitly - was that conversely, “without the corrective supplied by reason, also religion can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology“.

Also, please reread the quote you provided, where he spoke of the “Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many“. I know many atheists who do not want to “eradicate God from society” only “lack belief” and are tolerant towards others. Some prominent among them are the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas and the Italian philosopher-politician Marcello Pera whose discussions with the Pope are available in book form (“The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion“ and “ Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam“ respectively) .

Dear Banjo,

Your quote from Dawkins is interesting. You will not be surprised that I do not share his views, however I sort of agreed that it was not fair to call him militant (well, until I watched http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520894-richard-dawkins-at-protest-the-pope-rally-in-london-sept-2010). Apparently he does not mind himself.

Nobody can prevent “some people” from calling teaching of Darwinism - or any other part of science - "atheistic" education. Others, e.g. in Catholic schools, teach the same SCIENCE without attaching atheist (or theist) labels to them.

>> I … suggest that the legislator should outlaw "religious and ant-theistic" education of minors and other vulnerable persons by school and church. <<

Do you mean that a teacher who found inspiration either in books by Dawkins‘ or by Christian authors, and wanted to base his/her teaching on them, should be forbidden to teach?

You can remove a SUBJECT called RE or “anti-theist education” from schools, but I cannot imagine a teacher of e.g. European history who would endorse NEITHER the views expressed by Dawkins, NOR those by Christian historians. Or who would refuse to answer a child‘s question “Do YOU believe that God exists?” (“some people believe, some do not“ is not an answer only a statement that everybody - including an RE teacher - can, and should, make).

During a short period in my childhood I took private English lessons outside home, and RE solely from my father. So the one was instruction received from an outside body (like RE received from a church), the other at home. Neither were, strictly speaking, illegal, but I was well advised not to mention this at school. Well, learning English was forbidden for only a short period, but what you are suggesting is actually driving church educational activities underground.

I am not sure how you would implement this. Irrespective of that, based on experience with Communist practice, it would help religion in the long run. Howver, do you think this will also help the society as such? The two atheist authors I mention in my post to Poirot apparently don’t think so.

Pelican,

My posts were not about what atheist accept or not about the Catholic Church but a reactiom to accusations that the Pope blamed ALL atheists for something. Otherwise please see my last posts to Poirot. I do not have a more explicit quote by this Pope on tolerant atheists vs those who want to “eradicate God from society”, however his predecessor is known to have said in 1976:

“It is understandable that a man might seek but not find; it is understandable that a man may deny; but it is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe“.

I used the metaphor of pedophile priests just to react to Poirot’s contention that referring to “extremists” full stop is the same as referring to “atheist extremists“, not to introduce another topic, that has been discussed on this OLo a number of times. (If I try to explain the difference between the sizes of Earth and Jupiter by comparing them to peas and oranges, I don’t intend to start a discussion about fruit and vegetables.)

Otherwise I agree with some claims you make, and am aware that the other ones are part of the majority view on this OLO. I see no point in expanding on this again.

Dear Squeers,

Well, maybe you are not a sensitive plant, however I would not dare to do the experiment of using the language I referred to in my last post to you (aimed not at Christians but their adversaries on this OLO) to see how many atheist “sensitive plants” would pop up. See what happened to the Pope just because he argued against those who wanted to “eradicate God from society”.

You are entitled to your views that I am familiar with, and I objected only to the language used to express them. Of course, I did not take it personally. “Floating all religions on the stock market” indicates you have a strange understanding of either religion(s) or the stock market or both.

I also think you have an “expansive horizon, despite your self-imposed delimitations“.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote to George:

"I do see belief as "mental starch", though the metaphor belongs to E M Forster."

It seems "belief" has multi-facets, most negative but perhaps not all.

As I have written elsewhere and at other times on OLO, I see belief as a veil that blurs my vision. The more the beliefs I accumulate, the less clearly I see.

I nevertheless often wonder to what extent fervent believers may find inspiration for their worldly deeds, good or bad, in their beliefs whatever they may be.

Love is known to be a source of inspiration. Perhaps belief can be too in certain circumstances and domains.

I have noticed that the architectural inspiration of castles and a cathedrals is quite distinguishable though both equally aspire to quintessence. Music has been composed for religious ceremonies and religious themes. Art in all its forms: painting, sculpture, tapestry, embroidery, stained glass, etc., has found expression in religious themes and divine representation.

I often wonder to what extent such great artists as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. were inspired by whatever beliefs they may have had, whether religious or otherwise.

It appears that the word "inspiration" derives from the latin "in spiritum" meaning literally "to have God inside oneself". According to a widely spread doxa in Antiquity, inspiration was a gift of God.

So the etymology of the word inspiration derived from belief. But of course that was just belief and not necessarily reality.

.

.

Dear George,

.

In my view, education is more important today for the well being of humanity than religion. I have nothing against religion. As previously indicted I think it should be reserved solely for consenting adults who are in full possession of their intellectual faculties.

I can understand your father wanting to keep the flame of religious faith burning by passing it on to you, given the tyrannical political context that apparently reigned in the communist country in which you grew up. I have great respect for those rare individuals such as your father who have the courage to resist tyranny.

The philosophy I express here is totally out of context so far as you as a child and others like you and your father are concerned.

I am a fervent democrat and a republican (for want of something better) and expect no more than to be able to express my ideas freely for the consideration of my compatriots.

It is in this free, democratic political context that I consider that it is dishonest, immoral and a violation of the integrity of an individual human being to confiscate his mind whilst he is a defenceless child and program it with what, in this day and age, are no longer vital beliefs, by taking profit of his incapacity to differentiate between fact and fiction.

You and your father resisted the tyranny of the State in the communist country in which you lived. I encourage my compatriots to resist the tyranny of church and State in order that their children may have a chance of attaining adulthood with their faculty to choose fully intact.

Need I add that I have no illusions regarding the possibility of this or that teacher to play outside the rules or for the church to try to sneak through the back door. The contrary would surprise me.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> education is more important today for the well being of humanity than religion<<

You are comparing here apples with oranges, which probably explains the rest of your post. For instance, how would you "preserve" religion to "consenting adults" without outlawing (and enforcing the prohibition of) any education that does not see religious insight into reality as "delusions". I tried to offer my personal experience with that, which you apparently did not understand.

>>your father wanting to keep the flame of religious faith<<
This is one example. Talking to me about a variety of world-views (including, of course, atheist), history, politics etc in a perspective broader than the narrow-minded one atheist teachers were allowed to offer, had nothing to do with "flame of religious faith", whatever that means.

>>… resisted the tyranny of the State in the communist country…. I encourage my compatriots to resist the tyranny of church <<
Another example of apple and oranges. Or do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag? You obviously do not agree with them. How did they tyrannize you? Is making proclamations, and the publicity that is associated with their, tyranny?

>>to be able to express my ideas freely for the consideration of my compatriots<<
That is your right, although your "ideas" about "religious education" remind me of how some religious zealots see "godless education".

The problem is not with the existence of "religious education" or "godless education" but with those who call "dishonest, immoral and a violation of the integrity of an individual human being … confiscat(ing) his mind whilst he is a defenseless child" the alternative approach to education, fearing that it might open horizons for the child, that the zealot disapproves of.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

“how would you "preserve" religion to "consenting adults" without outlawing (and enforcing the prohibition of) any education that does not see religious insight into reality as "delusions". I tried to offer my personal experience with that, which you apparently did not understand.”

I just looked back over your posts on this thread in order to recall your childhood "personal experience" which opened up "religious insight into reality".

I found a couple of passages where you specifically mention experiences relating to your childhood but none that I could pin point as demonstrating "religious insight into reality".

Would you kindly indicate some examples? I have no preconceived ideas on the matter and am unable to say in advance whether I would consider them "delusions", enlightenment, inspiration or anything else.

“Talking to me about a variety of world-views (including, of course, atheist), history, politics etc in a perspective broader than the narrow-minded one atheist teachers were allowed to offer, had nothing to do with "flame of religious faith", whatever that means.”

If belief in the supernatural or some form of god or gods is a prerequisite for such "broader perspective", I consider that the preservation until adulthood of a child's freedom to choose, outweighs any advantage of such "broader perspective" at childhood.

“Or do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?”

I am unfamiliar with the professional religious activities of George Pell. However, if they are similar to those of the Pope, I perceive both these gentlemen as actively collaborating with the State in order to perpetuate religious beliefs through tyrannical practices consisting in taking profit of the inability of children to differentiate between fact and fiction.

"fearing that it might open horizons for the child"

I do not. I simply place “freedom of thought and opinion” very high on the list of individual rights which responsible citizens have a moral obligation to defend on behalf of defenceless children and persons not in full possession of their intellectual faculties.

.

.

Dear George (continued),

.

It is also possible that the church may "fear" that if it waits until children attain adulthood before attempting to "open" their minds to a "broader perspective", its chances of success may be considerably reduced due to the fact that it would no longer be dealing with immature minds incapable of discernment.

If such were to be the case, the results could be interpreted as a negative outcome, not just for the church, but for society generally. However, I am unaware of the existence of any statistical information tending to prove that children having received religious education have a more “open” mind and a “broader perspective” than those who have not received such education.

I might also observe that you, George, who did receive a religious education, seem to me to be particularly brilliant, but perhaps you are an exception. Perhaps you are brilliant despite your religious education. Perhaps you would have been just as brilliant or even more so without a religious education.

How does one measure an “open” mind and a “broader perspective”? What is there to prove that religious education does not have an adverse effect on some children, producing a “closed” mind and a “narrower perspective”?

Is it not possible that there may well be examples of the adverse effect of religious education on some of us here who post regularly on OLO ?

.

Dear Banjo,
I do think humanity needs some kind of spiritual (for want of a better word) connectedness, a reason to live, beyond subsitence, procreation or indulgence for their own sakes. A lot of secularists kid themselves that they have that; their families, for instance, and togetherness, and taking pride in their "achievements" and careers--and let's not forget the flag, which forces the most craven to stand up straight, and masks a host of sins. Then, of course, many derive their self-worth from the "fabric" of their lives; the house, the two cars and the holiday-home etc. Even those less materially well-off will draw succour from their lifetime of "hard-work" and being "self made"--the legendary battlers. And then the part-time intellectual and the artist squeezes what s/he can from a desperate sense of superiority or aloofness. The successful among this set are generally devoid of humility, though they'll make a nice pretence, finding their self-worth all around them in the form of public adoration 'and' material success, not to mention their buckram-bound conceits; invariably both derivative and deterministic. "The well that springs not from the heart is vain".
Which brings me to "inspiration" and its etymology in belief that you mention; just as mean and impoverished as liberal rationalism, in my opinion, if it's inspired by fear of God or death. I suspect true inspiration is extremely rare, perhaps only the province (in some measure) of the idiot savant, who is uniquely isolated from the full formative influence that culture, religious or secular, exerts.
A vicious culture surely makes vicious citizens, notwithstanding veneers of pietism and civility, or an ideology of self-congratulation.
Imagine what we could achieve if we were truly inspired and self-sufficient within an inspired culture.
There's a big difference between inspiration and infatuation, and it's the latter that controls the masses, religious and secular, imho.

George

Had Hitler been an atheist, it is a stretch for the Pope to equate the Nazi regime with atheism. These deeds were not done in the name or cause of atheism. Atheism does not promote the killing of non-believers just the opposite. Christianity does not promote the killing of non-believers (not anymore) and Hitler's religious views did not provide the impetus to kill innocent Jews.

It was a deliberate and false distraction and we will have to disagree on that point.

The Pope also advised against aggressive secularism. Many Christians are secularists it is not an atheist concept, and in fact was instigated by theists wanting to prohibit government interference in the Church. You cannot have the benefits of secularism without also the hindrances.

Secularism should not be seen as a threat - it actually pushes tolerance for all faiths.

The Pope said ""There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, to privatize it or even to paint it as a threat to equality and liberty," he said during his homily."

There is nothing wrong with the Pope expressing concerns about liberty and equality but his claims that religion is not allowed in public discourse is not the reality. Atheist commentators are a relatively new phenomenon and up until modern times the Church had a free run. Equality and liberty do not apply only to the Church.

None of us can stop, nor should we, criticism of a theist or non-theist perspective and we now live in times where this is possible without threat of death or imprisonment.

Equality and liberty works both ways and if the preachings of any Church reduce those equalities and liberties it is remiss of others not to pull them to account.

It was pleasing to see the Pope express regret for the failure of the Catholic Church to act on child abuse complaints - that is a good start and lets hope that the future will see a more progressive approach on Church matters.

Dear Banjo,

>>experiences relating to your childhood but none that I could pin point as demonstrating "religious insight into reality"<<

One teaches "religious insights" (or e.g. open-mindedness) differently to a seven year old and differently to a seventeen year old. Of course, a seven year old would not understand directly what "religious insight into reality means": it is presented to him/her in the form of narratives and other "models" from everyday life that he/she could understand and identify with (also e.g. mathematical "insights" are gained first through the counting of apples and oranges). This is how "religious insights" were arrived at by pre-rational humanity as well - through narratives, mythology etc.

Do you really need to be given examples of "religious insights into reality", i.e. philosophies compatible with, or even based on, religion, e.g. Christian? There are hundreds if not thousands of books devoted to these philosophies, including contemporary ones, that form an unassailable part of our Western heritage.

>>the preservation until adulthood of a child's freedom to choose, outweighs any advantage of such "broader perspective" at childhood<<.

Again, a small child does not need any "broader perspective", however I am grateful to my father that he did not make me wait until adulthood to understand the meaning of "Timeo hominem unius libri - whether that book is a Marx-Leninist text or the Bible (or Koran or Dawkins' "God Delusion" or what you like).

If I understand you properly, you answered with "yes" my question "do you really believe that the present Pope is comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?". This I find rather amazing, if not offensive to the Gulag victims. Belive me, they suffered more than e.g. you on the hands of this Pope!

"Freedom of thought and opinion" goes hand-in hand with freedom to give your child education in the world-view that you prefer (hoping that in his/her adulthood he/she will preserve and expand it, but also leaving it to him/her if he/she wants to adjust it to his/her own liking, or reject it and replace it with something else). (ctd)

(ctd)
I have to repeat, that there are many things - not only "religious insights" but also understanding and outlooks associated with mathematics, music, foreign languages etc. - that I am grateful for having been instructed in before I was "in full possession of my intellectual faculties."

>>It is also possible that the church may "fear" that <<
Many things are possible, especially if assumed from the position of a wishful thinking.

I agree that there is probably no statistical information on what groups of people have a more open mind and a broader perspective than other groups. These desirable properties are not the result of "religious" or "godless" education but of GOOD education, provided by open-minded teachers with a broad perspective, if you like, theist or atheist. Unfortunately, there are not many of them in either of the camps.

>>How does one measure an “open” mind and a “broader perspective”?<<
I don't know. There are many qualities one cannot measure.

>>Is it not possible that there may well be examples of the adverse effect of religious education<<
It is, however again, not religious or areligious education, but education resulting in a deficient, narrow-minded understanding of one's own world-view (arrived at for whatever reasons), or that of the alternative, or both, has "adverse effects". Yes, also I could (but would not) name people on this OLO who seem to fall into this category, again from both camps.

Pelican,
>>it is a stretch for the Pope to equate the Nazi regime with atheism<<
Again, please quote where he "equated" Nazism with (your definition of) atheism.

>>The Pope also advised against aggressive secularism<<
Well, it is not his job, but he could have advised also against aggressive e.g. Christianity (or aggressive anything).

>>Secularism should not be seen as a threat<<
I agree, so does the Pope (please see e.g. the books mentioned in my post to Poirot). Also, please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10799#179660 for the difference between pluralist and eliminative secularism referred to in my earlier post to Squeers.

>>The Pope said "There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, … but his claims that religion is not allowed in public discourse is not the reality. <<

Saying that "there are some who seek A" is not the same thing as claiming that A is the reality.

Otherwise I agree.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Your reflections on "spirituality" appear close to the philosophy of Theravada Buddhism dear to the Sri Lankan intellectual, Walpola Rahula.

The ancient Chinese "spirituality" appears to have been closely associated with an infinite respect for their elders (alive and deceased) together with an equally indefatigable reverence of Confucian rite ("Li", proper conduct).

I find occasion for "spiritual" experience in many aspects of daily life such as listening to classical music, reading, attending exhibitions of certain artists, contemplating nature, visiting (empty) churches and cathedrales (conceived by architects of exception and built by superb craftsmen over several generations), participating in community activities in the local city council, and in an ever deepening relationship with my beloved wife.

None of this is purely material, nor is it "subsitence, procreation or indulgence for their own sakes".

Perhaps living in a city like Paris has something to do with it.

.

Dear Banjo,

I think you are right. I am not "religious", yet am moved by beautiful architecture - especially cathedrals which I like to draw (wished I lived in Paris).
Contemplating this, I can only say that the harmony of form reflected in the lines and the planes, and the light and the shadow inspires me me to try and recreate it.

Dear Banjo,
Do I understand from your glowing assessment of your individual life that you disagree with me?
The rather bleak prospect I outline above of our "spiritual" vacuity is sociological. There is a strong sense in all of us that we are free agents acting independently and "essentially" within a given set of circumstances, that we are motivated from within rather than without, as if our "essential" being was unmolested by the conditions within which it operates. This is surely not the case; however valid the notion of an essential self, it is not an inviolable nucleus; it "was" a singularity and "is" a process of becoming. But its development and "success" or "failure" is socially constrained and culturally defined. We do not abide in a vacuum. Your own "spiritual" indulgences bare me out--that is that such a need exists. That you fulfil it in the exemplary way you do, by way of high culture and conjugal mystification (or how would you describe it), certainly redounds to your credit, that is according to popular "ideals" rather than "norms".
We all conceive qualitative assessments of ourselves, but you surely won't deny that a full and frank confession would be bound to blemish your (or mine) escutcheon?
Cont..

..Cont
I'm also fascinated with cathedrals (and ecclesiastics. I even wrote a would-be novel based on my fascination), but I'm sceptical of my motives. I listen almost exclusively to classical music (as a philistine, without understanding it) to drown out the world in order to think. I also love to walk and think. I read (or used to) "great" literature, but 'twas more for cultural capital than edification. I too love my wife, but I've always found the concept problematic.
On the other side of the ledger: I hardly know my neighbours, yet dislike some of them regardless. I do nothing to help my community, bar offering it criticism and paying tax. I "cheated" on my first wife and had affairs with married women. I'm an impatient driver, occasional lecher and I've said and done many things of which I'm embarrassed and ashamed. I'm altogether typical, in other words, though a little tame, overall, I suspect.
The point I'm making is that the seed's "potential" for growth is "in" the medium--the culture. The culture is impoverished (commodified) and the plants are stunted; so they seek what they lack in intangibles, indeed they make a fetish and a tradition of intangibles--reify them--to support the want of healthy (potential) development.
Prevailing in such poor soil, in competition with one's neighbours (rivals), and sustained by opiates (intangibles), the stunted plant conceives itself a majestic oak as it surveys the tree-tops.
Yet a gnawing hunger, and doubt, abides in all of us. Despite all our bluff and bluster, or professed faith, we are unfulfilled, ailing and timorous, though we rebel against such acknowledgements.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

It is interesting to learn that architecture brings out the artist in you and that it is a source of inspiration.

I imagine it is in painting.

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

It was William Shakespeare’s signature I was expecting at the end of that playwright text you wrote.

I do not see my previous post as a "glowing assessment of (my) individual life" but rather a faithful description of my life as it is today.

Of course it has not always been like that. Like most of us, I suppose, I have had many lives. I cannot count how many.

My mother taught ballet and made me a ballet dancer. Until I raked up enough courage to say no and took up boxing instead.

We were very poor and I started working at the age of ten after school, on the weekends and during school holidays to pay for my school books and uniform. They kept me hidden out the back in the storeroom because they said I was too young to work and it was illegal.

My father died when I was thirteen. I learned that he was alive the day I was told he was dead. I had always thought he was dead.

My formal education ceased just before my fourteenth birthday and after a few years in the Queensland outback working (gratuitously) for a Bush Brotherhood Hostel looking after children from the outback, I migrated to Sydney where I worked in insurance.

From there I landed in Paris (after two years on the road) with virtually no money, knowing nobody and unable to communicate. I again worked in insurance in a back office where I could communicate internationally in English.

Stress and anxiety in the fight for survival against rude competition made those early years in Paris extremely difficult. My marriage took some heavy blows. Sex was my outlet. Not drugs, not alcohol. Just plain hard sex.

My professional days are over now and the battle has been won. The stress and tension are gone. All is calm inside me. My (French) wife and I have succeeded in merging and are now synthesized into a single being. Not just spiritual.

We will probably die together. That will be the end of our story.

.

Dear Banjo,
thanks for that interesting insight into your interesting life (I could well compare notes). I hope I didn't give offence. I wasn't so much contesting "your" "exemplary assessment" as men's propensity in general to assess their lives in optimistic (if not fantastic) fashion. Apart from astonishing omissions and revisions, even genuine hardships are easily converted into merit points: making the best of adversity (perceived or real. I'm thinking Mr Bounderby in Dickens's "Hard Times"), indeed turning hurdles into conceits that both put a stop to personal growth and perpetuate social injustices as "good for the soul".
I'm really using these exchanges to explore Marx's notion that we are distorted by the competitive relations we find ourselves in. When those crushing bores go on with "it'll make a man of you!" etc., such cliches are in good measure a means of asserting and validating their own insecure manliness, and perfectly useless as advice, unless to temper the emergent soul to the inevitable hardships to be encountered in an unfair, competitive and exploitative (vicious) system. It does seem to me that the culture maketh the man, and I wonder if we are by nature so desperate to establish superiority (of whatever kind) over others. It seems to me that a fair, equal and just society would just as readily foster benevolence as ours fosters antagonism.
Quite right about the Buddhism, btw, except I don't agree with the dogma of renunciation, I believe in making the only world we have a better place.

Apologies to the ladies for sexist terminology above, but I have less insight into female foibles and am only really dealing with the male syndrome.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Marx's notion that we are distorted by the competitive relations we find ourselves in."

Perhaps "modified" rather than "distorted" by "involuntary" competitive relations.

In Australia when I was young, it was generally considered that competitive sport was a character builder, amateur sport, of course, not professional sport.

The ancient Greeks are credited with being the first organisers of sport on a systematic basis. The Olympic Games which began in 776 AD originated as part of a religious festival dedicated to Zeus.

Powerful Greek city-states required defence against outside attacks and they ensured this by encouraging and rewarding warriors. The development of the polis triggered the growth of the state's control over human expressions of violence.

The state established a legitimate monopoly over violence and reserved it for the possible repulsion of attacks from outside powers.

Contests, challenges, and rivalries were ways in which the impulse could reassert itself, but in socially acceptable forms.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who organised the first modern Oltmpics in Athens in 1896, was convinced after visiting England that rugby had played an important role in the rise of British power in the 19th century. He decided it had to be transplanted into France. Coubertin saw physical health as being necessary to win wars. If France was to overcome its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, physical education had to become central to the French education system.

Of course there are negative aspects to sport. It serves nationalism and capitalism. Pushed to the extreme, pleasure and spontaneity disapear in favour of obedience to strict rules, efficiency and record times. Excessive training transforms human beings into efficient machines.

No doubt in the socialist ideal it is preferable to be co-operative rather than competitive. Partnership is preferable to competition.

I subscribe to that but only as regards the home team. What better motor for progress than to strive to surpass previous limits and whatever it is that others are capable of achieving?

Competion is what Darwin called natural selection which I understand is necessary for the survival of all biological species, including mankind.

.

.

Dear George,

.

"Do you really need to be given examples of "religious insights into reality" ..."

Yes please. You indicated certain "insights into reality" ("Timeo hominem unius libri", for example) but none specifically "religious".

"If I understand you properly, you answered with "yes" my question "do you really believe that the present Pope is comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?"."

Your question was more specifically: "do you really believe that the present Pope is a TYRANT comparable to ..."

The Popes and the Church were and are in a position of authority in respect of minors, past and present, entrusted to their care and protection and to their education.

The non-respect of the fundamental rights of those minors (incabable of discernment) in their custody, to freedom of thought and opinion, is nothing less than a form of child buse.

Child abuse commited by those in a position of authority is a form of tyranny. The Popes and the Church have and continue to commit child abuse by dispensing religious beliefs to minors incapable of discernment. It is an act of tyranny.

The despotic abuse of authority of "those who sent millions to the Gulag" is also an act of tyranny. They have that in commun with the Popes and the Church.

What differentiates between the two is the degree of horror and abomination of the Gulag on the one hand and the fact that the tyranny of the Popes and the Church is exercised with the tacit consent of a large secteur of society, including the families of the victimes, on the other.

It is highly unlikely there will be any change of attitude as long as the Popes and the Church continue to dictate the codes of morality. They will continue to exercise their tyranny on the immature minds of undiscerning minors, in perfect quietude.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>"Do you really need to be given examples of "religious insights into reality" ..." Yes please.<<
As I wrote, there are thousands of sources devoted to philosophies compatible with, or even based on, religion. I don't believe you do not know any, but if so, just google "philosophy, religion" or something like that. Therein you will find also the quote I gave, allegedly attributed to Aquinas, which, indeed is not "specifically religious" (only its author is), and should be an indispensable part of any open minded education, religious or not.

You really cannot expect me to summarize all possible approaches to these (philosophical) insights into reality - and their different "watered-down" popularizations adjusted to children and young people of different ages - in 350 words or so, on this OLO! Nevertheless, I tried to state my personal approach to this a number of times on this OLO, see e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883 and the sequel.

You confirmed in many shocking words my suspicion that you find what Stalin did to millions of those he disliked with what Benedict XVI did, or could do, to you if you do not accept him "dictating" to you his "codes of morality".

I already tried to answer your description of religious education as "child abuse", that you keep on repeating, so there is obviously no point for me to continue. If you reread what you wrote you will perhaps also see that these are not statements about religious education or Benedict XVI, but about your (emotional) state of mind regarding religion (or just the Catholic Church). I know that e.g. Dawkins keeps on expressing similar sentiments -seeing Catholic education worse than sexual abuse of minors, a claim so absurd that not even Stalinist propagandists would have dared to make explicitly.

I have to respect your sentiments since I don't know what caused them. So please, let us leave it at that.

George,

When you say “religious education”, what you’re actually referring to is - in every sense of the word - “indoctrination”. To call indoctrination mere “education” is misleading to say the very least.

The term “religious education” would only be accurate if we were talking about comparative religious studies, or at least not teaching it as though it were the truth.

There are many distinct differences between education and indoctrination. The article at http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-education-and-indoctrination
outlines them well.

<<Dawkins keeps on expressing similar sentiments -seeing Catholic education worse than sexual abuse of minors, a claim so absurd that not even Stalinist propagandists would have dared to make explicitly.>>

Would you be able to link me to some information in regards to Dawkins saying this? It’s not that I don’t believe you, I just can’t find any specific reference to it.

If Dawkins did say this, then (from what I know of Dawkins) he would have specifically had the threats of eternal damnation in mind, in which case, while I’m not sure I’d say that childhood indoctrination is “worse” than the sexual abuse of minors, I think it’s right up there... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_UI-EBGnqk

.

Dear George, (continued)

.

I am sorry for the delay in sending this. It got blocked by the OLO 24 hour time limit.

"Freedom of thought and opinion" goes hand-in hand with freedom to give your child education in the world-view that you prefer (hoping that in his/her adulthood he/she will preserve and expand it, but also leaving it to him/her if he/she wants to adjust it to his/her own liking, or reject it and replace it with something else)."

That sounds like the first car salesman you meet saying "buy this car now! If you find one you like better down the road you can always modify it or sell it and buy the one you like better or decide not to buy a car".

Does that sound like a good deal to you George? Would you buy it immediately or wait until you are in a postion to make a decision on whether to buy a car or not and if so which one? Should we all buy cars from that salesman?

"... there are many things ... understanding and outlooks associated with mathematics, music, foreign languages etc. - that I am grateful for having been instructed in before I was "in full possession of my intellectual faculties."

Yes but the acquisition of those "understandings and outlooks" is progressive and usually adapted to the rhythm of development of your intellectual faculties.

As a child, at whatever stage of development, you lack the intellectual and psychological maturity as well as the experience that enables an adult not only to differentiate clearly and accurately between fact and fiction, but also to regard all beliefs, whatever they may be, with a certain amount of prudence and scepticism.

PS: I just noticed your new post and will come back soonest. I am sorry that my "world view" shocks you but it is a sincere, honest and considered opinion. Perhaps I should have kept it to myself and not posted it here on OLO. Please forgive me for not being sufficently attentive to your sensitivity and perhaps that of others.

.

.

AJ Philips,

>>When you say “religious education”, what you’re actually referring to is - in every sense of the word - “indoctrination”<<
Do you really want to claim that the 1.147 billion (Roman) Catholics in this world were ALL "indoctrinated"? In a couple of posts above pelican objected to the Pope "equating" Nazism with atheism. Of course, her objection would be justified had the Pope really said something like that. The same with calling ALL religious (or ALL Catholic) education "indoctrination".

I do not remember when in my childhood I was told about hell and its meaning; apparently in different ways at different stages of my growing up. I agree that in some (too many?) cases this was presented in a way scaring the hell out of the child (pun unintended), however, claiming that this is how Catholic educatioin is being offered TODAY in ALL cases borders on paranoia.

>>link me to some information in regards to Dawkins saying this<<
http://www.thedubliner.ie/the_dubliner_magazine/2007/04/the_god_shaped_.html.

Or Chapter 9 in his book about (his?) God delusion. (I do not have the book only access to its online version, not in English: if you have the book, read the couple of sentences starting with "Once at a lecture I was asked …". There is no mention of hell in these two sentences only of "education in Catholic faith".

And finally, you will probably find something along those lines also in http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520894-richard-dawkins-at-protest-the-pope-rally-in-london-sept-2010.

Dear Banjo,

>>That sounds like the … car salesman<<
Maybe, but car salesmen don't sell cars to children, and many parents - theists or atheist - would object to having their choice of a proper education for their child compared to the approach of a car salesman: ditto for the rest of your post, where you keep on repeating yourself and I could only react by repeaing myself as well.

I am certainly not shocked; or do you think I am hearing these things for the first time? I am not a psychologist, so I am not going to speculate.

.

Dear George,

.

I am pleased to hear that I did not shock you. Thank you for your reassurances. I appreciate it.

I am sure you understood my metaphor about buying a car. Many parents buy cars for their children. There is quite a wide range available on the market these days to suit all budgets and all ages, even for toddlers.

But never mind, apparently it is an image that displeases you. I have noted that and hope to find something more agreeable if an occasion should arise some time in the future.

Thank you for your road map to God in three steps. I read that with interest and have taken the liberty of downloading a copy on my computer for future reference.

However with regard to your "religious insights into reality" I can understand your difficulty in providing any sort of concrete example that your father may have imparted to you when you were a child.

I browsed through a half a dozen articles on the web link you indicated on "philosophy, religion" but the closest I could get to "religious insights into reality" was what I would describe as "a philosophical approach to the question of the existence of God" and "a religious explanation of reality".

Unless I am missing something, I have the feeling your father was simply giving you the sort of religious instruction you would normally have received from a Catholic priest if it had been authorised. But having said that, I am sure it must have had a very special value coming from your father, particularly in those special circumstances which you described.

.

George,

<<Do you really want to claim that the 1.147 billion (Roman) Catholics in this world were ALL "indoctrinated"?>>

Considering you and Banjo were just discussing childhood indoctrination with you even saying, “I already tried to answer your description of religious education as "child abuse"”, I figured it was safe to assume that you’d realise that I wasn’t talking about every Catholic (or theist). Especially since the childhood education/indoctrination bit has come up before in our discussions recently...

“Do you think the “religious education” (as you would prefer I call it) that you received from your parents...”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178916)

<<In a couple of posts above pelican objected to the Pope "equating" Nazism with atheism. Of course, her objection would be justified had the Pope really said something like that.>>

I fail to see how what the pope said was much better than “equating” Nazism with atheism.

<<The same with calling ALL religious (or ALL Catholic) education "indoctrination".>>

Now that you mention it, I guess all religious education (done from the perspective that it’s the truth) is actually indoctrination.

Even as I look back to the Bible study classes I attended as a young adult - they fit the definition of indoctrination since the methods used to study the bible were described in that link I referred you to. We were indoctrinating each other with the help of the pastor who’d sit in with us and lead the study. But we were adults, so it wasn’t such an issue.

<<I do not remember when in my childhood I was told about hell and its meaning; apparently in different ways at different stages of my growing up.>>

Neither do I actually. No specific memories anyway. But I think you’re starting to confuse indoctrination in general with the claims of child abuse (mental I mean, not sexual). Indoctrination can occur at any age.

I wouldn’t get too caught up in the teaching/threatening little children about/with hell though. From what I’ve observed, that doesn’t happen too often, and as you’ve said...

Continued...

...Continued

<<... claiming that this is how Catholic educatioin is being offered TODAY in ALL cases borders on paranoia.>>

There’s also the point Dawkins makes about labeling a child. We’d never label a child a “Marxist child“ or a “Keynesian child”, yet we afford religion this luxury without give the child a chance to decide for themselves what they will actually consider themselves to be.

<<...read the couple of sentences starting with "Once at a lecture I was asked …". There is no mention of hell in these two sentences only of "education in Catholic faith".>>

Here it is:

“Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience. But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant ... Her view, as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:

Continued...

...Continued

Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares.

Admittedly, the sexual fondling she suffered in the priest’s car was relatively mild compared with, say, the pain and disgust of a sodomized alter boy. And nowadays the Catholic Church is said not to make so much of hell as it once did. But the example at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical”

[End quote]

Not quite the same when you read what he actually said, is it? Note particularly the last paragraph. Especially the last sentence with operative words being “at least possible”.

It paints quite a different picture to your very blunt and inaccurate representation: “Dawkins keeps on expressing similar sentiments -seeing Catholic education worse than sexual abuse of minors, a claim so absurd that not even Stalinist propagandists would have dared to make explicitly.”

In regards to Stalinists though, it’s worth pointing out that we’re generally a lot more enlightened and aware about the problems with religion then people were back in those days. So it’s unfair to imply that Dawkins is worse than Stalinists here.

Speaking of unfairly demonizing Dawkins...

<<And finally, you will probably find something along those lines also in http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520894-richard-dawkins-at-protest-the-pope-rally-in-london-sept-2010.>>

Yes, I’ve seen his speech at the protest and no, I don’t think he says anything about Catholic teachings being worse than sexual abuse.

Continued...

...Continued

The speech was brilliant and it is nothing short of admirable that Dawkins is tirelessly taking the initiative to raise consciousnesses like this. I’m surprised you’ve been parading this around a little here as though it were some sort of blight on atheism.

You try to make Dawkins out to look like some sort of irrational, radical blowhard who shoots his mouth off without having a clue on what he’s talking about.

On the contrary, (while being a little hyperbolic at times as a way of raising consciousnesses) Dawkins is very level-headed and rationally-minded when it comes to his criticisms of religion, and has a habit of hitting the nail squarely on the head every time. This is reflected in the attempts by theists (like yourself) to give a distorted picture of who he is and what his opinions actually are.

So long as you don’t bother to read The God Delusion and continue to cherry pick pieces that sound nasty when taken out-of-context, you will never be in a position to criticize Dawkins, and nor will you fool anyone - who has read his works - about his knowledge on the topic of religion and his ability to think rationally about it.

I can understand that you’d feel the need to try and paint Dawkins as some sort of atheist version of runner, but he’s not. If fact, the beauty of atheism is that is doesn’t have runner equivalents since disbelief is based on reason - even if some atheists are ignorant about, and have naive perceptions of religion.

As I’ve said before, theism and atheism aren’t equally opposing views. Please try to remember this the next time you are tempted to equate the two in one of the “from both camps” points that you so often make.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the kind words, if I understand properly your last post.

>>your father was simply giving you the sort of religious instruction you would normally have received from a Catholic priest<<

No, he was giving me "instructions" (at my age of 10 until adulthood: before that it was rather my mother and grandmother who formed my "world-view") in history, politics, philosophy/theology etc. from a perspective broader than the school would be capable of (or allowed to) offer. Since he was a Catholic, this naturally included explanations and interpretations (from the vantage point of 20th century, and adjusted - I presume - to my age) of the bible, theology/metaphysics, the Catholic position (he had a postdoc degree in Canon Law), etc.

I should add that Stalinism broke out fully only when I came to high school, so I had some kind of RE at primary level, where I must have learned about bible stories etc. I do not remember much, since my father's later "input" overwrote my early childhood understanding of Christian faith.

AJ Philips,

I admit that when referring to a quote from Dawkins, the "couple of sentences" should have been more explicitly "two sentences", since the first two make up the sweeping statement I was objecting to, not the following example, of which there are certainly many. (If you wrote "Australians are drunkards" I would have objected since that would be a sweeping statement, even if you illustrated it by examples (one or many) of actual cases of Australian drunkards.)

>>we’re generally a lot more enlightened and aware about the problems with religion than people were back in those days.<<
This is an obvious statement about the advantages of hindsight which should be applied not only to "problems with religion" but also e.g. when criticizing some Catholic educational practices decades, even centuries, in the past.

Remember, it was you who asked for quotes from Dawkins, and I gave you, actually three of them. Perhaps I should not have, since it provoked four lengthy posts from you, like a couple of times in the past. I really do not see any point in answering again your assertions sentence-by-sentence, which would probably take four posts as well, (even if I ignored your "argumentum ad hominem" style). We should have learned from our previous encounter that this ping-pong of assertions and counter-assertions does not lead anywhere if we want to keep to the rational (as opposed to emotional) level.

So let us just leave it at that: you prefer Dawkins' appearance in London to that of the Pope (apparently as both contents and form of presentation are concerned), whereas my taste goes the other way around.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for those fleeting insights into your childhood and adolescense. It helps to understand your "world view" by putting it into context.

Please be assured that I, personally, shall not abuse of it.

I must say, however, that I was rather suprised to see a person of your intellectual calibre and logic, suggesting an amalgam between a form of "child abuse" (institutions inculcating minors with religious beliefs) and the atrocious crime against humanity of "sending millions to the Gulag".

The difference of scale is simply absurd and escapes all possible comparison.

It is like comparing the flatulence of a rabbit to a hurricane. The comparison is abusive in both instances (rabbit v hurricane and "child abuse" v Gulag) .

Introducing an amalgam of that order into our discussion is not befitting of you nor the cause you are defending.

.

.

Dear George, (continued)

.

I do not imagine for one minute that you are a fan of Doris Lessing, the 2007 Nobel Prize winner for Literature but I thought I would post her thoughts here on the subject we have been discussing.

Before doing so, it is interesting to recall that Doris Lessing was educated at the Dominican Convent High School, a Roman Catholic convent all-girls school in Salisbury (now Harare). She left school aged 14, and thereafter was self-educated. This is how she described education:

"You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do.

What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system.

Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself—educating your own judgements.

Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society."

.

Dear Banjo,

>> an amalgam between a form of "child abuse" (institutions inculcating minors with religious beliefs) and the atrocious crime against humanity of "sending millions to the Gulag".<<

You are apparently referring to my sentence "seeing Catholic education worse than sexual abuse of minors (is) so absurd that not even Stalinist propagandists would have dared to make explicitly".

I do not know where you got the "amalgam", Gulag etc. I simply spoke of MY experience with Communist propagandists, who were naturally anti-Church, and condemned Catholic education in similar terms that Dawkins et al do today, but would be afraid of completely loosing their credibility if they considered it WORSE than SEXUALLY ABUSING A CHILD. The latter was considered a crime, punishable by law, also by Communists, while Catholic education - as discriminated against in many ways as it was - was not formally a crime.

There were (and still are) societies functioning well, where providing a child with Catholic education was (is) not illegal; I do not know of a functioning society where sexually abusing children is not against the law.

.

Dear George,

.

"You are apparently referring to my sentence "seeing Catholic education worse than sexual abuse of minors (is) so absurd that not even Stalinist propagandists would have dared to make explicitly"."

No, you originally introduced the amalgam on page 13 of this thread when you wrote:

" ... do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?"

But never mind, George, I have made my point and I am happy to leave it at that. There are no hard feelings.

I find very interesting your indication that "Catholic education - as discriminated against in many ways as it was - was not formally a crime."

I do not know which communist country you are referring to but do you know if that was true in all communist countries prior to the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union?

.

George,

I like our discussions. So I really try hard to leave well enough alone when you say something like, “so let us just leave it at that”. Believe me, I do.

But there are a couple of points that I’m sure you’ll understand why they are necessary to make once you read them...

<<I admit that when referring to a quote from Dawkins, the "couple of sentences" should have been more explicitly "two sentences", since the first two make up the sweeping statement I was objecting to, not the following example...>>

Yes, and this is why cherry picking is so problematic. Because Dawkins explains, in the very next sentence, that his remark was, not only an off-the-cuff remark, but that the positive reaction he got came as a surprise to him (indicating that at the time, he - at the very least - had doubts about whether he meant what he’d just said).

<<Remember, it was you who asked for quotes from Dawkins, and I gave you, actually three of them.>>

Well, yes I asked, because I honestly couldn’t remember where or when Dawkins had said that and Google searches weren’t returning much.

But you actually only gave me two instances of him saying that since he never made the claim in his speech at the protest; I’ve clarified what he said in his book, and in the link you gave me to The Dubliner, he says exactly what he said in The God Delusion - only worded slightly differently.

What he said in the Dubliner interview was ever-so-slightly brasher, but considering it was a spoken interview and not a carefully considered piece of writing, I think that’s understandable.

But I appreciate your efforts all the same.

<<Perhaps I should not have, since it provoked four lengthy posts from you, like a couple of times in the past.>>

I’m not sure why you would see such a long response as a bad thing.

Continued...

...Continued

You should feel pleased that what you have to say can get someone’s mental juices flowing to such an extent and be seen to be so worthy of such effort in responding.

<<I really do not see any point in answering again your assertions sentence-by-sentence ...We should have learned from our previous encounter that this ping-pong of assertions and counter-assertions does not lead anywhere if we want to keep to the rational (as opposed to emotional) level.>>

I’m not sure what you mean by my “assertions”. Any points I made in my last response that were made as if no supporting evidence were necessary, was only made in such way because I’d already covered the reasoning (rather sold reasoning too if you’ll recall) behind them at some point in a past response and didn’t want to bore you or waste my word count by repeating it.

Even if there is a bit of emotion in what I say, all my arguments (and the reasoning behind them - covered at some point in the past) were/are still sound on a rational (as opposed to emotional) level.

Dear Banjo,

>> No, you originally introduced the amalgam on page 13<<
In all fairness, what you are referring to is a REPLY to your "amalgam":

You wrote:
>>You … resisted the tyranny of the State in the communist country in which you lived. I encourage my compatriots to resist the tyranny of church and State in order that their children may have a chance of attaining adulthood with their faculty to choose fully intact.<<

To which I replied:
"… do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag? You obviously do not agree with them. How did they tyrannize you? Is making proclamations, and the publicity that is associated with them, tyranny?"

You see, I did, not object to you calling "tyranny" the State in the Communist country but to you comparing (or amalgamating, if you like) it with whatever you dislike on contemporary Church and the Pope. How else was I supposed to understand your reasons for using "tyranny" in both cases in one paragraph? And you still did not answer the question how did they tyrannize you (or children you know) that could be compared with what Stalinists did to their victims.

No hard feelings, I agree, although I am not sure on whose side.

The country I experienced Stalinism in was Czechoslovakia. The attitude towardds religious education was about the same in all East European countries, although different countries were differently rooted in their religious traditions, hence exerted different resistance.

As to what was and what was not listed as crime in the law-books of this or that country, I am only sure that e.g. a father who sexually abused his daughter, would be officially put on trial and sentenced, whereas a father who attended Sunday masses with his children, sent them to First communion, could only be sent to menial, manual jobs, etc. The harshness varied not only from country to country but also from time to time, the strictly Stalinist times wer only at the beginning.

.

Dear george,

.

It seems I closed the book too soon. However, I understand your concern and am happy to open it again. The sequence of events was as follows:

Page 11 (George):

As I said, I grew up in a Stalinist country, so I experienced not atheistic, but explicitly anti-theistic education, but even there the Authorities would not have dared to “outlaw“ education by e.g. Christian parents, only discriminate against it.

Page 13 (George):

During a short period in my childhood I took private English lessons outside home, and RE solely from my father. So the one was instruction received from an outside body (like RE received from a church), the other at home. Neither were, strictly speaking, illegal, but I was well advised not to mention this at school

Page 13 (Banjo):

I can understand your father wanting to keep the flame of religious faith burning by passing it on to you, given the tyrannical political context that apparently reigned in the communist country in which you grew up. I have great respect for those rare individuals such as your father who have the courage to resist tyranny.

Page 13 (Banjo):

You and your father resisted the tyranny of the State in the communist country in which you lived. I encourage my compatriots to resist the tyranny of church and State in order that their children may have a chance of attaining adulthood with their faculty to choose fully intact.

Page 13 (George):

Or do you really believe that the present Pope (or George Pell) is a "tyrant", comparable to those who sent millions to the Gulag?

My analysis: 

I termed "tyranny" the discrimination you suffered as a child from the State regarding your English and religious lessons.

I then compared the "tyranny" you suffered to a similar "tyranny" suffered by "my compatriots" at the hands of Church and State, not for witholding religious education, as in your case, but for dispensing it.

It seems to me quite a large jump from there to the Gulag.

.

Dear Banjo,

>> I termed "tyranny" the discrimination you suffered as a child from the State regarding your English and religious lessons.<<

No, you spoke of me and my father resisting "the tyranny of the State in the communist country in which you lived", not of discrimination. "Tyranny" in my dictionary means "cruel and oppressive government or rule" or "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power". Since I did not give you any details of my father's ordeal (he was not jailed; only my uncle, at the age of 25, was sentenced to 9 years, mostly spent in uranium mines, for having been caught translating a French prayer book) I made the - unjustified as I see now - conclusion that your use of the phrase "tyranny of the State in the communist country", referred to the REGIME subservient to the Soviets (who indeed sent people to the Gulag), and NOT to discrimination against religious education in Czechoslovakia, which I would not call "tyranny" on its own.

I could not describe in a few words the sufferings I could observe at first hand, (although my personal experience I would not call suffering) the same as you could probably not describe the sufferings on the hand of Catholic "tyrants" that you could observe at first hand.

So the only criterion of whether such parallel use of the word tyranny is justified could be in comparing the numbers or refugees in both direction:

Of people risking their lives in the 1950s (and later) fleeing from a Communist country to the West in order to escape the Communist tyranny. And of people risking their lives fleeing from some Western country to a Communist country in order to escape the "tyranny" of the Catholic, or other, Church.

So please, let us indeed close the book on this very painful for me topic; it is not a pleasant feeling for me to have to fight my emotions wanting to interfere with my argument.

AJ Philips,

>>Dawkins explains, in the very next sentence, that his remark was, not only an off-the-cuff remark<<

The sentence you refer to, and the following, are: "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It WAS an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment …".

[If I remember properly, he said something very explicit (on Catholic education and sexual abuse) in an article that appeared, I think, also in The Dubliner years before the Catholic priests' scandal broke out in the US. Unfortunately, I do not remember who quoted him - I did not pay much attention to such things at that time - and I could not find it in The Dubliner online, so I gave you the link only to the 2002 article.]

I wonder how would you react if I said (assuming you have a child):
"horrible as sexual abuse no doubt is, the damage is arguably less than the long-term psychological damage you inflict on your child by bringing it up without religion in the first place",

and dismissed this as an "off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment" (instead of apologizing).

But then, I already suggested to accept that we have different tastes concerning these matters - and also read differently what Dawkins wrote or said - and leave it at that.

I promise not to take Dawkins' name in vain any more in posts addressed to you, lest I upset your trust in him. For the same reasons that I would not want to upset somebody's trust in Jesus or Mohamed.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for that detailed analysis. It seems there has been a misunderstanding which, in a sense, is reassuring.

I know from your posts that you think rationally and choose your words carefully as I also endeavour to do. And yet, as it has just been demonstrated, misunderstandings can still arise.

Communication (making common) is both an art and a science. And it is not something you or I can do on our own, which makes it even more difficult.

Mutual confidence (with trust, faith) is an excellent catalyst.

Perhaps I should mention I have visited Praha on two occasions and have fond memories particularly of my first visit in 1966. I stayed with the parents of a student friend I had met at the university of Reykjavik.

They were very kind and patient with me though we had no way of communicating. On the weekend we travelled by train and on foot to their little "datcha" in the forest, picking mushrooms on the way. The mother made us the best mushroom soup I have ever eaten in my life.

Praha was cold, barren and sad in those days, the people terribly poor. The shops had nothing to sell. But still there was history, culture, music and poetry in the air, in the architecture, even in the closed faces on the street.

All that was gone when I returned, in search of my memories, in 1991 following the "velvet revolution".

I was surprised to find that many of the people I met seemed to regret communism.

But then, I had an Australian passport and was just passing through.

.

George,

<<I wonder how would you react if I said (assuming you have a child):
"horrible as sexual abuse no doubt is, the damage is arguably less than the long-term psychological damage you inflict on your child by bringing it up without religion in the first place", and dismissed this as an "off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment" (instead of apologizing).>>

Firstly, the fact that it was an “off-the-cuff remark” wasn’t actually a dismissal, but it was still important when assessing the situation and his point-of-view on this matter as a whole.

Secondly, I think he gave ample reasoning for what he said (considering also that he’d said “ARGUABLEY less [damage] than...” and “it is at least POSSIBLE...”) to not owe any apologies since he had presented a reasonable case.

But how would I react if the roles were reversed? That’s a good question.

For starters, we need to remember that atheism isn’t a belief system, or something that one holds dear to their heart or is emotionally attached to. So it wouldn’t ‘hurt’ me if someone were to say that.

My initial reaction would probably be a face-palm followed by an astonished shake of the head as I thought to myself: “How blinded and foolish would you have to be, to be so certain of an unfounded belief that you’d actually claim that raising a child without your chosen belief system could be classed as psychological abuse.”

<<But then, I already suggested to accept that we have different tastes concerning these matters - and also read differently what Dawkins wrote or said - and leave it at that.>>

Well, ‘reading differently ‘ is certainly a possibility. But you’re a highly intelligent person who is very fluent in multiple languages, so I get the feeling that any understanding of Dawkins that you have is tainted purely because of your religious beliefs - despite that fact that you’re such a rational thinker. Either that or there are more sinister reasons for your misinterpreting of Dawkins, but I don’t believe you’d be sinister like that consciously.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I promise not to take Dawkins' name in vain any more in posts addressed to you, lest I upset your trust in him. For the same reasons that I would not want to upset somebody's trust in Jesus or Mohamed.>>

When I first read this I thought, “Implying that atheism is like a religion in this way is a bit beneath George”. But then I remembered that you do still often equate theism and atheism as though they were two equally opposing aspects of world-views.

I used to think your were being sneaky or disingenuous by equating the two, but your sincere question of me in regards to how I would feel in the roles were reversed made me realise otherwise. It appears that having been a Christian your whole life, you honestly don’t know what disbelief is like at all, and so it may very well be understandable that you equate the two as thought they were equally opposing positions. Although I have explained many times why it is wrong to equate the two, so...

In regards to Dawkins though, you can criticize him all you like. Heck, I will by saying that I think he’s becoming a bit too arrogant these days and that his arguments are getting a little stale. I also think that his lack of patience - at times - with theists can cause him to react childishly. But that doesn’t detract from the accuracy or relevance of his criticisms, and I’ll often stand up in his defence when I see him unfairly criticized since he is such a big target.

There are a few other outspoken atheists that I find far more witty knowledgeable than rusty ol’ Dawkins.

Dear Banjo,

>> I have visited Praha on two occasions and have fond memories particularly of my first visit in 1966.<<

I studied and lived in Prague during 1954-1965. Perhaps I should explain: I grew up and received my HSC in Bratislava. In spite of my "religious background" I was lucky enough to get to university, because the Comrades made the mistake of rewarding the country’s first three (I think) in the Mathematical Olympiad (high school students' competition) with admission to a Czechoslovak university of their choice without entry exams, which also meant without ideological/political scrutiny (next year the rewards were only financial).

So I got my degree, even a tutor's position at Charles University, until I was found out. I was sacked because as one who was “burdened by religion” (or whatever the proper translation) I was not allowed to be in contact with young people; actually more, I was not allowed to take up any job as a mathematician. I wrote my PhD thesis without a supervisor, while working as an unqualified worker in a Prague Paper Mill. Later I was "rehabilitated", but in 1968, during the Soviet-led invasion I could leave the country and settle in Australia.

A student, who in the 1960s was allowed to study at a "capitalist" University in Reykjavik would most probably belong to a "caste" very different from the one I (and the vast majority of the population) belonged to.

So, you see, I had a first-hand experience of the Communist system only until 1968, which included the worst (Stalinist) part, but not the post -1968 years when the system gradually "melted" leading to its fall in1989. However, I agree that many people over there found it hard to adjust to a life of freedom, but also personal responsibility, after decades of unfreedom: one often uses the metaphor of the lion who grew up in a zoo, but starved to death after being set free, unaccustomed to look for food on his own.

AJ Philips,

>>I remembered that you do still often equate theism and atheism as though they were two equally opposing aspects of world-views.<<
I certainly never said that but, anyhow, this is a good illustration of how we speak past each other: My sentence you apply this comment to had nothing to do with theism or atheism, but with psychology: me not wanting to upset somebody who trusts "religiously" (meaning "treated or regarded with a devotion") Jesus, Mohamed, Dawkins or whom you have.

You would nor expect me to regard Jesus and Dawkins as comparable; only the states of minds of certain sympathizers or devotees, respectively, might be comparable.

>> “How blinded and foolish would you have to be, to be so certain of an unfounded belief that you’d actually claim that raising a child without your chosen belief system (as stated and explained in your book) could be classed as psychological abuse.”<<

Actually Dawkins claimed more than that, not just psychological abuse but WORSE (with whatever qualifications) than sexual abuse. Anyhow, Is this what you suggest should be my reaction to Dawkins' position? Well, although I do not agree with Dawkins on this, such is not my way to express my disagreement. Sorry, I promised not to take his name in vain, so I should not be braking my promise.

So let me just repeat for the THIRD time:

Let us agree that we have different tastes concerning these matters and leave it at that. And also, that we have different ideas about argumentum ad hominem: I certainly do not claim to know - or even to make condescending comments on - what made you believe or not believe this or that, or that what you write is "tainted" by this or that.

.

Dear George,

.

It is amusing to learn that we nearly crossed paths a short lifetime ago. The web corrected that.

Perhaps we could say some things were meant to be.

I imagine that if you were "found out" as being “burdened by religion” it was not because the STB or Czech peoples' militia or whoever, was able to read in your thoughts but because there was some visible or audible expression of your "heavy load".

As a risk management consultant and insurance broker I have inspected a very large number of paper mills in France and find them quite interesting. I am sure you did not lose your time there.

In fact, as an ordinary labourer without any responsibilities, perhaps it allowed you greater disponibilty for your own studies than if you had continued your university tutorial work.

Unfortunately, I am unable to judge to what extent the fact of not having a supervisor for your maths thesis was a handicap. If I judge by the experience of my elder daughter in the field of linguistics who had two supervisors for her doctorate, their main (if not only) role seems to have been to promote the acceptance of her thesis after she had completed it without any prior help or guidance from either of them.

Happily, your professional reorientation was sufficient to "lighten" your "burden" and permit your later "rehabilitation". After all, yours was a mathematical vocation not a religious one.

No doubt the consequences would have been far more tragic had you been a member of the clergy.

All that is history now but I can understand that you do not need much prodding for it to resurface in a flash. Whether you were ever "burdened by religion" or not is a question of opinion but of one thing I am sure: unlike the proverbial lion, you did not starve to death when you were set free.

You are obviously accustomed to looking for food on your own.

.

Banjo to George:
<In fact, as an ordinary labourer without any responsibilities, perhaps it allowed you greater disponibilty for your own studies than if you had continued your university tutorial work>

This has also been my experience, and of great benefit I believe. My formal education came to nothing and I abandoned it at 14 to pursue edification where I might find it. Coming to university studies nearly 30 years later, I found myself advantageously disponible (thanks for the new word, Banjo) to my re-immersion in institutionalised learning. I felt a bit like Huckleberry Finn learning to wear shoes (it was perfectly acceptable to go bare-foot at the primary school I attended when we arrived in OZ: Inala State School), and I still relate to Mark Twain's maverick, even misanthropic, humanism. I continue to marvel too at the way ideology speaks through most people, even the highly educated, who in their conceited mithering and parroting, think they're thinking. Mark Twain dared to think for himself.

One day I want to write about some of the great characters I worked with, and about blue collar work in general (almost a bygone era). I recall particularly that human capacity to make the best of a bad lot and to take pride even in the most menial and instrumentalised labour. I've had practical insight into Marx's almost mystical notion of praxis, pathetically evident, albeit withered, in the loving care devoted to even repetitive task labour. Human beings are extraordinarily disponible, and given to devotion, which is why they're so easily exploited.
Curiously enough, I too worked in the paper industry!

Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for your words. What I wrote was very sketchy but since you commented on it, let me clarify something.

>>I imagine that if you were "found out" as being “burdened by religion” it was not because the STB or Czech peoples' militia or whoever, was able to read in your thoughts but because there was some visible or audible expression of your "heavy load".<<

Czechoslovakia consisted of Slovakia - one of the most Catholic nations in Europe, like Poland and Ireland - and Bohemia (Czechia) with Czechs traditionally among the most anti-clerical and atheist nations. So the anti-religious policies were more widely applied and felt in Slovakia, where I grew up, than in Prague.

In Prague I had my first, in fact, encounters with atheists who were as opposed to Communist ideology (of course, only secretly) as the Catholic (and other Christian) intellectuals in Bratislava I grew up among. There I also learned that Christians as well as atheists can be more open-minded and tolerant towards each others world-views when facing an intolerant and oppressive ideology, than when they think there is nothing to prevent them from indulging in their own intolerance towards the other.

My religious background, in Bratislava as in Prague, was manifested to the outside world SOLELY through regular church attendance. That was the only way we could make our presence felt to the authorities. In Bratislava the churches were often packed full, and people stood outside the church, so the police had no chance of registering everybody who attended. The same in Prague regarding "visible or audible expressions" of my religious world-view. Only that in Prague church attendance was not nearly as common, so the Comrades did not pay much attention to whether a particular student attended.

I was "found out", as I wrote, because my father refused to cooperate with the Secret police (he knew personally a politically active emigré, and they wanted him to help them to kidnap him, or something like that). So they punished him though his three sons.
(ctd)

(ctd)
My "rehabilitation" occurred because the agent who was behind the pressure on my father fell out of grace with the Central Committee of the Party for unrelated reasons.

>>the consequences would have been far more tragic had you been a member of the clergy<<
Probably yes, although we do not use the term "tragic" to describe these experiences. For a priests and religious (especially nuns) the ordeals were firsts of all different: some where jailed and tortured. My own experience in the 1960s was negligible compared to what I had to hear as a teenager about the torture of priests by specially trained "ladies", and nuns by untrained ….

Of course, not all priests were tortured or jailed. There was no separation of church and state so the Comrades decided who was allowed into pastoral duty, and who not. Known is the case of a Slovak bishop who after being released from jail earned his living as an elevator repairman.

[Since you live in Paris, let me add an anecdote: In 1968, during the Prague Spring thaw, I was allowed to accept a scholarship from CNRS and spent about a month in Paris. An old colleague in Bratislava had asked me to bring him something about a French Catholic author he somehow came to hear about. So I went to a shop on Place St Sulpice, where they had a cluster of Catholic bookshops (do they still?). With my poor French I asked the lady whether they had something from this author, and showed her a piece of paper where I had jotted down his name. She stared at me as if I had fallen from the moon, then pointed to a whole room full of books devoted just to him. The name I had jotted on that paper was Teilhard de Chardin. Just an illustration of how isolated from the rest of the world we were there even in 1968, not to mention the fifties.]

Now I see I have written more than was necessary, I just thought I owed you some clarification

Thanks for sharing that fascinating story, George. One of the great things about OLO is reading the experiences (occasional snippets) of our elders, such is the only tangible way that history exists. Though we disagree somewhat, in some things, I have the greatest respect for yourself, DavidF and other long-lived and canny contributors. I hope you're writing your memoirs!

Sorry George. Again I really want to leave well enough alone, but you’ve asked yet another good question that I think deserves an answer and besides, I simply can’t ignore points that need correcting.

<<I certainly never said that [theism and atheism are equally opposing aspects of world-views]...>>

Of course you didn’t. I never said you did. But you still equate the two as though this were the case.

<<...anyhow, this is a good illustration of how we speak past each other:>>

I don’t think we talk past each other at all. I understand everything you say, and I think I demonstrate that quite well too. I believe you understand everything I say too. But in some instances (such as the issue here about what Dawkins said or didn’t say) you fiercely resist understanding what I’m telling you because reality is conflicting with what you want to believe. I guess it’s kind of like a microcosm of religious belief on the whole when you think about it - the same mechanism is employed.

<<...My sentence you apply this comment to had nothing to do with theism or atheism, but with psychology:>>

Yes, “psychology” - the psychology of theists and atheists - erroneously spoken about comparatively as though they could be compared fairly. It’s misleading in the same way that it’s misleading to use the term “world-view” when you actually mean “religious beliefs”, or the lack thereof.

<<You would nor expect me to regard Jesus and Dawkins as comparable; only the states of minds of certain sympathizers or devotees, respectively, might be comparable.>>

But they’re not, and that the whole point here.

The state-of-mind of a sympathizer/devotee of Dawkins would be one of respect and maybe even admiration, while the state-of-mind of a believer in Jesus is more along the lines of exaltation and even chronic blinding delirium in the vast majority of cases too.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Actually Dawkins claimed more than that, not just psychological abuse but WORSE (with whatever qualifications) than sexual abuse.>>

You use the words “with whatever qualifications” as if the qualifications didn’t matter, but they do because those qualifications show Dawkins to be saying something almost entirely different to what you’re claiming he said. It’s almost as crazy as me saying: “I don’t care that you inserted the qualifier “some, not all”, you made a blanket statement tarring everyone with the same brush.”

I’ll make it really simple for you:

Dawkins did not say that Catholic education is worse than sexual abuse. What Dawkins said is that it’s possible for the psychological effects of sexual abuse - in its milder forms - to outclass the psychological effects of an increasingly small amount of cases of indoctrination. Or to alter the crude wording you’ve used: It’s possible for some of the more extreme instances of Catholic education to be worse than the milder cases of sexual abuse.

Capisce?

<<Is this what you suggest should be my reaction to Dawkins' position?>>

No. Because Dawkins’ position is based on sound reasoning rather than unfounded beliefs and assertions and - as you are desperately trying not to understand - is not an absolute blanket statement either, but more like “food for thought”.

<<Let us agree that we have different tastes concerning these matters and leave it at that.>>

Well yes, but in the end, it’s not really about tastes. It’s about what’s more accurate, and Dawkins’ criticism was far more accurate than the Pope’s.

This whole, “agree to disagree” thing, or the “you have your opinion and I’ll have mine”, is all good and well, but at the end of the day, there’s such a thing as truth.

<<And also, that we have different ideas about argumentum ad hominem:>>

Ad hominems are irrelevant personal attacks used to distract from the topic at hand. My mentioning of why your view of Dawkins is tainted, is not only relevant, but addresses the issue as well since it explains why you’re so reluctant to interpret Dawkins correctly.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I certainly do not claim to know - or even to make condescending comments on - what made you believe or not believe this or that, or that what you write is "tainted" by this or that.>>

“I appreciate the strength of the Occam’s razor argument, especially when combined with negative “religious” experience.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#151002)

[Condescension goes to the heart of sophisticated theology. Granted though, two wrongs don’t make a right.]

But hey, that’s okay. I didn’t mind. In fact, I’d prefer you did so more often, and if you did, I would correct, confirm or even ignore what you said before I’d scramble for the moral high ground as a distraction. What better way to understand the other’s point-of-view?

Squeers,

Thanks for you flattering words. No, I am not writing my memoirs, I don’t think many people would read them. In fact, I think we were more interested in the life experiences of the older generation than the young are now: the young people in the West placed their dreams in the future (I hope they still do), we over there dreamt about the pre-WWII past that the older told us about.

In 1956 - during a brief political lull during the Hungarian revolution - I was allowed to visit my aunt in Vienna (a distance of 60 km, but separated by the iron curtain: imagine the cultural life in Geelong separated from Melbourne by an iron curtain). I remember how on my way back Dante‘s “Lasciate ogni speranza voi che entrate” were reverberating in my 19 years old ears. Well, it took only another 12 years before I could leave “the hell” for ever.

As to whether the life of an “ordinary labourer without any responsibilities“ allowed me greater disponibility (availability?) for my studies, I don’t know. It was meant as punishment for not being politically correct as one would say today, but I actually appreciated the experience that had nothing to do with my PhD:

In the parchment paper factory I met a few who were there for being class enemies (I remember the history professor assigned to burning the waste paper), but mostly genuine labourers, many of them Communists before WWII, who were very protective towards me: “it was over our backs that the Communists climbed to power” was their (admittedly simplistic) attitude.

Actually, I was soon asked to solve a problem they had with the cooling of the sulfuric acid while officially remaining a simple labourer. I accepted the challenge, contacted the Professor of Thermodynamics, who knew my case and secretly sympathised with me. He gave me references to thermodynamics engineers. They helped me (I was no competition for them), and thus for a year or so - until my “rehabilitation” - I could “work“ with engineers instead of in the carpentry workshop.

AJ Philips,

First of all, there is no need to paraphrase or interpret what Dawkins wrote. He is a contemporary author speaking a contemporary language, so everybody can read e.g. the parts that were verbatim quoted or referred to on this OLO, and form his/her own conclusion.

If you reread carefully my last post you will see that I wrote “only the states of minds of CERTAIN sympathizers or devotees, respectively, might be comparable.” If I say CERTAIN elements of set A are related, comparable to CERTAIN elements of set B, I do not mean ALL elements of A are thus related, comparable to ALL elements of B.

I thought it was clear from the context what “certain sympathizers or devotees“ I had in mind: these are those who accept UNCRITICALLY everything this or that Church or Preacher or author, (religious or anti-religious) teaches: theirs is a state of mind that it is hard to argue with. I did not name anybody who would belong to that class, and certainly would NOT make this arrogant statement (obtained by reversing yours):

“The state-of-mind of a sympathizer/devotee of Jesus would be one of respect and maybe even admiration, while the state-of-mind of a believer in what Dawkins says is more along the lines of exaltation and even chronic blinding delirium in the vast majority of cases too“.

I do not need to reassure myself in my own world-view (if you do not like the expression look it up e.g. in Wikipedia) by “explaining why you’re so reluctant to interpret (this or that) correctly“ for the simple reason that I am too old to be thus uncertain about it. I only know that nothing can be achieved by simply repeating how correct, I am and how incorrect, those who disagree with me are.

Note that in your link http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#151002 I express an attempt to understand without judgement: there is nothing there about being correct or incorrect.

So, psychology or not, let me repeat my plea to leave it at that.

.

Dear Squeers and George,

.

I am afraid my French suddenly pops up sometimes in my English when I least expect it and vice versa.

That is OK when I have a doubt as I can then check and correct it. The problem arises when I am totally unconscious that I am confusing the two languages. My mind automatically selects the word which best expresses a particular idea. If it does not correspond to whatever language I happen to be using, it arranges it to make it look as though it does, hence "disponilbilité" became "disponibilty".

Of course George is right in suggesting that the English equivalent is "availability" but apparently my mind prefers "disponibilité". I have no idea if it is a question of etymology or psychology. Hapilly, both of you understood what I meant.

.

.

Dear George,

.

It would have been difficult for you to flee any further on this earth than Australia . I am proud that you chose my country and that it did serve as a safe haven for you.

Your story is interesting and, to me, quite revolting. Unfortunately it is far from unique. I hope our people will always continue to welcome asylum seekers and offer them the opportunity to start a new life in perfect peace and security.

Teilhard de Chardin is a well known figure amongst the educated population in France. Even I have heard of him. I am also aware of the existence of the Procure bookshop in the Place St Sulpice, though I cannot recall ever having entered it. It used to be almost exclusively a Catholic bookshop (and probably was in 1968) but has since become more generalist.

The CNRS is, of course, France's leading research institute and to be offered a scholarship, even for one month, is necessarily a tribute to your intellectual talent.

I find all that quite reassuring as my initial reaction when I first read your posts on OLO, was, I must confess, rather negative. I too found you somewhat "heavily burdened with religion".

However, now that you have been so kind as to throw some light on your early life I find you much more sympathetic and perfectly capable of carrying that "heavy load" without it representing a major handicap.

I guess you will carry it with you to the grave, George, so we might as well get used to it.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the kind words.

>> I too found you somewhat "heavily burdened with religion"<<
This somehow reminds me of when - soon after arriving in Australia - I asked a Scottish colleague, and friend, whether he sometimes walked around in a skirt. His reply was something like “Since you probably don’t yet know the difference between a skirt and a kilt, I shall not take it as an offence; only please never ask a Scot such a question again.”

Your quotation marks in “burden” are obviously a reference to my, clearly imperfect, translation of the “technical“ term “nábožensky zatížený” used by the Czech Communists to describe Christian class enemies, professors and other educated people who e.g. found inspiration in reading (to keep to French authors) Jacques Maritain, Gabriel Marcel, Joseph Maréchal, later also the aforementioned Teilhard de Chardin. They usually would not use the term in connection with ordinary or “simple village” folk who - according to the marx-leninist simplified understanding of religion - were supposed to be susceptible to religion anyhow, and posed no threat to their aim at reeducating the new generation.

.

Dear George,

.

"Burdened with religion" is fine for "nábožensky zatížený" so far as I can judge. It seems that a possible alternative could be "religiously loaded" but that sounds too much like a revolver or a shotgun which does not quite fit your image, George.

I can well imagine that the communists considered that Czech intellectuals who found inspiration in authors such as Jacques Maritain, Gabriel Marcel, Joseph Maréchal and Teilhard de Chardin were, in all likelyhood, "nábožensky zatížený".

There must have been a well-informed elite communist intelligentsia infiltrated on the university campuses and other intellectual circles of society.

However, it seems difficult to imagine that they went unnoticed.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am not sure I understand what you mean by “well-informed elite communist intelligentsia infiltrated on the university campuses“.

“Reactionary” university staff and high school teachers (In Slovakia a great part of them Catholics, who in Prague were only a small minority among the “reactionaries”) were removed soon after the Communist seizure of power in 1948. The official name was “cistky”, something like “cleansings”. Committees consisting of semi-educated (with a few exceptions) “revolutionaries“, usually on a much lower intellectual level than those they scrutinized, decided about who could stay and who not. No “infiltration“, just forcible, revolutionary if you like, power takeover.

At the time when I was at the University, the “cleansings“ had long been accomplished. Nevertheless, students (of mathematics and other science-related fields) could somehow sense who even among those remaining was not “politically correct”: After all, it was easier for a mathematics lecturer not to offend against the official ideology without prostituting himself, than this would be for a philosophy or history lecturer. [In Prague religion played only a marginal role - my reference to Maritain, etc. concerned more the intellectual milieu in Bratislava which had practically no pre-Communist tradition of anti-clericalism or anti-theism.]

>>it seems difficult to imagine that they went unnoticed.<<
Those who pulled the strings were very much noticed. In 1960s we all had learned to live very carefully: what one said to whom, although I did not make any secrets of my regular church attendance (of course, I didi not advertise it either). That was the only “resistance“ that for us, Christians, was possible and meaningful - a passive, anonymous, no-personal-contacts-with-priests, taking part in a crowd (Charter 77 came much later).

Believe me, it is very difficult to explain in a few words the atmosphere of a totalitarian system that penetrated everything, and the associated arts we all had to learn : “the art of carving out one’s own private existence”, “the art of reading between the lines”, “the art of sensing out whom you could talk to more or less openly”, etc.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for those explanations. I had overlooked the fact that, as you say, the communoist seizure of power dated back to 1948. Obviously there was no need for infiltration by the time you arrived at university. It had all been accomplished well beforehand.

My question was in relation to the French authors you cited. It had occurred to me that one would need to have a fairly broad academic culture and "intellectual level" (to employ your expression) in order to identify those particular French authors as being "politically incorrect" at the time.

Hence my comment regarding the possible existence in Prague of a well-informed elite communist intelligentsia.

No doubt I was lead in error by the fact that I had in mind the French model where much of the enthusiasm in France for the Russian revolution was driven by the left bank Parisian intelligensia (Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, Merleau-Ponty and company) and not "semi-educated (with a few exceptions) “revolutionaries“, usually on a much lower intellectual level than those they scrutinized".

Anyhow, I do not wish to labour the point. You already indicated that this subject brings back unpleasant memories so let us talk about something else.

(Continued ...)

.

.

Dear George, (continued)

.

One thing I realised when my children had finished their studies and it was too late, was that it had not occurred to me that I should alert them to the importance of developing a critical mind.

I would be interested in having your thoughts on this question. It seems to me that you have a fairly sharp critical mind when it comes to replying to what are often aggressive posts directed to you here on OLO.

You also clearly mark your distance from those who interpret religious literature literally. I do not know if you adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church. The impression you give me is that it is possible you do not.

However, I cannot recall having ever read anything from you that could possibly be interpreted as expressing doubt or criticism of your Catholic faith.

Do you consider that you have a critical mind? If so, are there any subjects you consider "out of bounds", excluded from the field of criticism for whatever reason (such as your faith, for example)?

I now have grandchildren in the range of six to ten years old and have the opportunity of opening-up vistas for them which I failed to open-up for my children.

In fact, I neglected the subject of criticism completely for my children and often have occasion to regret that they are totally incapable of accepting the slightest criticism. At best, they see it as purely negative, at worst, as an agression.

Quite stupidly, I had never envisaged this possibility and presumed that my children would naturally and automatically seek to submit themselves to criticism as I always have, treating it simply as a convenient and practical system of verification and rectification, similar to consulting a dictionary.

I should welcome any reflections you may accept to share with me on this subject.

.

Dear Banjo,

I named the French authors just to convey to you what I meant by the Catholic intellectual milieu in Bratislava (as a matter of fact, only Maritain was translated into Slovak, the language spoken there). “Politically incorrect” (the official term was “reactionary“) were the professors etc to be purged, not the French authors, whom the “purging Committees“ probably never heard of.

Your second post is a compliment and challenge, that I shall try to address it to the best of my abilities.

You are asking (a) some personal questions, that I shall come to later, and also (b) with respect to your children, you speak of "automatically submitting oneself to criticism" treating it as a "system of verification and rectification, similar to consulting a dictionary". I did not understand the relation between CRITICISM ("expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes" in my dictionary), and consulting a DICTIONARY.

One usually consults a dictionary with an a priori acceptance of its authority either on facts or on generally agreed upon definitions and interpretations (like me quoting the dictionary definition of "criticism"). On the other hand, one should listen to criticism in order to broaden one's own perspective on the matter, and only sometimes dismissing or accepting it completely, i.e. sticking to one's own initial position or completely changing it, respectively. These, I think, are the two extreme reactions to criticism, and a reasonable person usually reacts to reasonable criticism by amending his/her initial position to something between these two extremes. Yes, it depends on what you call "reasonable", but still.

Before I continue, let me say that I admire the way my father brought me up - as far as critical approach to one's own world-view is concerned - but am not that happy with what I managed to achieve in raising my daughter's interest in world-view matters beyond the banal. (ctd)

(ctd)
Perhaps the difference was that my father did not trust the anti-theist school I went to, whereas I trusted too much the Catholic girls' school in Australia my daughter attended, that - in my opinion - acted rather as a damper in this respect.

When I came to my father with something the ideology-driven teacher said (interpreting this or that scientific fact, historical event, etc.), that I felt went against what my father would say, his reaction was NEVER "he/she is wrong, the right answer (based on the Bible, the teaching of the Church or other authority) is this or that."

His reaction was a more or less lengthy elaboration on the topic, showing that the teacher's approach was not entirely wrong only an oversimplification, and so was its direct opposite, that the "truth", the most acceptable interpretation, lies somewhere in-between and that I must find it for myself (while he was unobtrusively guiding my teenage mind).

During my 1968 stay in Paris I found the following (probably known to you):

A 6 ans: "Papa sait tout!"
A 10 ans: "Papa sait beaucoup de choses!"
A 15 ans: "J’en sais autant que papa!"
A 18 ans: "Décidément, mon père ne sait pas grand chose!"
A 30 ans: "Nous pourrions tout de même demander l'avis du vieux!"
A 40 ans: "Mon père sait quand même quelque chose!"
A 50 ans: "Mon père a raison!"
A 60 ans: "Ah! Si nous pouvions encore le demander à papa!"

Perhaps my father's approach is related to what theologians (e.g. Cardinal Avery Dulles, the son of the 1953-59 US Secretary of State) call pre-critical/countercritical, critical and post-critical theology that can also be seen as a kind of thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics.

Let me now turn to the personal questions.

>> (whether) you adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church.<<
The question hinges on the word "dogma". They are the basic tenets, axioms, of a rationally organised system, mostly dealing with undefined concepts that make no sense beyond the particular religious language, referring to "ultimate reality" only as symbols. (ctd)

(ctd)
The title of the book, where Dulles explains his ideas, is "The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System". I concede, that the Catholic Church, more than other Churches or non-Christian denominations, clings to the concept of dogma, as misunderstood and misused it is by outsiders.

I think the French poetry in my last post reflects (perhaps with a shift upwards in the corresponding ages) to a large extent many Catholics' lifelong attitude towards their Church (despite it being referred to as Mother not Father), except that we hope the "A 60 ans" situation will remain only as a threat.

The symbolic world of religious - in this case Catholic - concepts and dogmas about them building up into a system, somehow reflects a reality that goes beyond the physical, material. Here the individual "observer" and the cultural envelope where the concepts and tenets evolved play an essential role, certainly much more important than in case of science (physics) and its theories, although in both cases one can speak of "models of reality"

It is hard to put these things into a few words. So my answer would be yes, I "adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church", where "unconditionally" means that I would not openly criticise those, who cannot accept the world of religious symbols unless they give them meanings familiar to them from everyday life. Like I would not criticise the way a primary school teacher explains mathematics to children, although I might rightfully think I have a deeper understanding of it. For example, all Catholics believe that the consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ, but even the most "uneducated" know that no laboratory procedure would detect a difference, so even they know the dogma is not about physical reality.

I shall always remember the answer Frank Little, then Archbishop of Melbourne, gave to an interviewer who kept on interrogating him about some ethical questions "If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be no." (or yes, I forgot what the question was). (ctd)

(ctd)
Problems arise when the level at which a person understands matters of religion (or mathematics for that matter) is much lower, naive, in comparison to his/her general level of education: then he/she must either accept or reject it uncritically.

>>I cannot recall having ever read anything from you that could possibly be interpreted as expressing doubt or criticism of your Catholic faith<<
Doubt in matters of faith is a state of mind, that one experiences, not expresses to the outside world, and for me only constructive criticism can serve a positive purpose. This is not unlike one's attitude towards one's family, one's parents. I just finished a 10 page paper (in Slovak) about how I see the present crisis in the Catholic Church, which is almost entirely caused by their outdated understanding of sexual psychology and its moral teachings built on this. Criticism without rebellion is the art I tried to practice in these inward directed remarks.

>>are there any subjects you consider "out of bounds", excluded from the field of criticism for whatever reason<<
No, there is nothing a priori "out of bounds", as long as criticism is not confused with denigration, ridicule or outright insults. If you say that your father is superior in whatever sense to Mr X's father, I would object without knowing anything about the respective fathers. The same about world-views (based on this or that religion or none), irrespective of whether "superiority" is couched in moral or rational terms.

I do not see "freedom to offend" as part of our "freedom of speech". I am against the "freedom" to burn the Koran or to draw caricatures of Mohammed because it hurts contemporary Muslims, the same as some centuries ago the burning of the Bible and caricatures of Jesus would have hurt Christians, and probably called for similar reactions from them (by now most Christians have grown a thick enough skin allowing them to ignore such outburst of infantility).

Well, I have to finish, although I am not sure I actually addressed what you challenged me to.

.

Dear George,

.

Whilst waiting for your "continued" post, I should say I find your dictionnary's definition of "criticism" somewhat incomplete. Here are my findings:

Etymological Origin:

1575–85; < L criticus < Gk kritikós skilled in judging (adj.), critic (n.), equiv. to krit ( es ) judge, umpire ( kri ( nein ) to separate, decide + -tes agent suffix) + -ikos -ic

c.1600, "action of criticizing," from critic + -ism. Meaning "art of estimating literary worth" is from 1670s.

Criticism:

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.

Quotations:

"To be just, that is to say, to justify its existence, criticism should be partial, passionate and political, that is to say, written from an exclusive point of view, but a point of view that opens up the widest horizons ... It is from the womb of art that criticism was born." (Baudelaire)

"Without the meditative background that is criticism, works become isolated gestures, ahistorical accidents, soon forgotten." (Kundera)

"Culture is only true when implicitly critical, and the mind which forgets this revenges itself in the critics it breeds. Criticism is an indispensable element of culture." (Adorno)

"The greatest honor that can be paid to the work of art, on its pedestal of ritual display, is to describe it with sensory completeness. We need a science of description.... Criticism is ceremonial revivification." (Paglia)

As you find my comparison with a dictionary an over-simplification, I propose that contradictory debate in a court of justice is a technique enabling the emergence of "truth" similar to criticism .

.

.

Dear George,

.

That's strange, your "continued" posts had not arrived when I hit the button to send my last post. When I did they suddenly appeared from nowhere.

The OLO internet server or whatever must have slept on them and suddenly woke up when I hit the button to send mine.

I shall study your posts carefully and come back soonest.

.

.

Dear George,

.

"One usually consults a dictionary with an a priori acceptance of its authority either on facts or on generally agreed upon definitions and interpretations. On the other hand, one should listen to criticism in order to broaden one's own perspective on the matter, and only sometimes dismissing or accepting it completely."

Naturally, I only seek criticism from those persons whom I consider to be an "authority" on some particular aspect of the "work in hand".

By "authority" I mean "whose opinion I value" (including perhaps the opinion of those whom I value simply for their "good common sense").

By "some particular aspect" I mean the "subject matter" (in part or in whole), the diction or mode of expression employed, the literary or aesthetical qualities (or lack thereof), or various other aspects such as clarity, logic, comprehensibility, possible interest, originality, possible reactions, objections, improvements, etc.

Just as I found your dictionary's definition of "criticism" to be incomplete and sought alternative definitions, so I might seek alternative sources of criticism.

It is in this sense that I seek criticism as I consult a dictionary. I consider they have a similar function and serve the same purpose. Neither is an "imposed" or "absolute" authority. They only have whatever authority I accept to accord them.

Naturally, unless I indicate my own definition for a particular word, the commonly accepted dictionary definition applies. However, I feel no more bound by any particular dictionary than by any particular criticism.

Exactly what value should be attributed to either of them is my decision and my decision alone.

Needless to say, I particularly appreciate criticisms which reveal genuine defaults, omissions and errors. I regard these as positive contributions to the "work in hand" as they allow it to be corrected and improved. Failure to seek such criticisms or simply choosing to ignore them would inevitably result in considerable embarrassement which I, personally, would prefer to avoid.

Peremptory judgements, unwarranted denigration, personal abuse, slander and insults are, of course, totally excluded from I would consider "criticism" in the noble sense of the term.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>As you find my comparison with a dictionary an over-simplification, I propose that contradictory debate in a court of justice is a technique enabling the emergence of "truth" similar to criticism .<<
I did not find your comparison an over-simplification, and I certainly did not write that.I only said I did not understand the relation you had in mind; now I understand beter.

Exactly because the word has so many definitions and connotations - some of them meaning simply rational analysis or interpretation of text, as you point out - I quoted the one definition I guessed you were referring to. I agree with what you propose: I thought I said more or less the same in the second of the four posts when referring to dialectics.

Now I realize my own inconsistencies, when later I allude to "constructive criticism" which is closer to your understanding of the word than to the definition I originally quoted.

Perhaps one should distinguish between (negative) criticism as "expression of disapproval" and (constructive) criticism as a process in which both the critic and the criticized are involved.

(ctd)
I can see your point so comprehensively expanded in your last post, and of course, I agree with you.

>>I feel no more bound by any particular dictionary than by any particular criticism<<
Neither do I, except that I think there is a difference in the purpose of a dictionary and that of a criticism.

In order to understand a criticism (aimed at some position or opinion I am holding) and eventually respond to it, I have to be sure that I have the same understanding (definition) of the crucial terms involved in the critique, or critical analysis. For that purpose I consult dictionaries (preferably those known not to be ideologically biased), or some other generally recognised authority on the matter, hoping to find the one that the author of the critique/criticism had in mind. I might have my favourite definition in this or that, but if it is not shared by the other side, there is no point in dwelling on it.

For instance, I had to change what I thought to be the standard definition of atheism to what I found (on this OLO) to be acceptable to the majhority of those who proclaim themselves atheists. And use the term anti-theist to describe what I previously thought was the standard definition.

.

Dear George, (continued)

.

I had not heard of the 6 to 60 year poem you indicate. However, I am familiar with the following one which is vaguely similar:

http://www.tadine.ca/poesie/gabin/gabin01.shtml

I think I already indicated I had no father, just a mother. The only father I know is me. The only grandfather I know is me too.

"all Catholics believe that the consecrated host becomes the Body of Christ, but even the most "uneducated" know that no laboratory procedure would detect a difference, so even they know the dogma is not about physical reality."

I was able to follow you regarding the "symbolism" of the world of religion and the "models of reality" in physics and religion, but I experienced a breakdown in understanding when I reached this sentence.

Are you inferring that you believe the host is neither the physical body of Christ nor simply a symbol of His body but some non-physical form of "reality" which remains to be determined?

Are you suggesting that in addition to having a physical reality the host also assumes a "supernatural" reality? Indeed, it seems, as you suggest, "no laboratory procedure would detect a difference".

May I ask you to kindly elaborate a little further on this point.

Also, I do not understand the following sentence:

"I "adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church", where "unconditionally" means that I would not openly criticise those, who cannot accept the world of religious symbols unless they give them meanings familiar to them from everyday life."

Should I understand that you do not adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church but that you choose not to express this openly in order to avoid upsetting certain people.

Would you kindly explain a little further.

I think I understand the rest of your post.

.

.

Dear George,

.

"Perhaps one should distinguish between (negative) criticism as "expression of disapproval" and (constructive) criticism as a process in which both the critic and the criticized are involved."

No, I should not operate this distinction. "Expressions of disapproval" may be quite positive if, as I indicated previously, they reveal genuine defaults, omissions and errors.

I suspect you and I are looking at "criticism" from different perspectives. The "criticism" I am referring to when I say I seek it as I consult a dictionary is "upstream criticism", ie, during the gestation period of ideas concepts and writings. I like to bounce my ideas off the minds of various people and submit them to their critique before giving those ideas, concepts and writings their final form.

Articles I publish here on OLO are ideas and concepts that are still in the gestation phase. I am here to collect a maximum of "upstream criticism" and I consider that it is all positive with the exclusion of any "peremptory judgements, unwarranted denigration, personal abuse, slander and insults" as previously indicated.

OLO has the advantage of providing a free source of criticism from a fairly broad spectrum of critics of all ages, cultures, fields of interest, experiences and social origins. It is a virtual melting pot.

I find it more difficult to think of "expressions of disapproval" as negative criticism though I am sure there must be cases where this is true. I consider they need to be examined in detail before deciding whether they are positive or negative.

For them to be negative, they are necessarily situated "downstream", ie, post crystallisation of ideas, concepts and writings. Had they been expressed during the gestation phase, they would have had either a positive effect (enabling their integration) or no effect at all as I would have rejected them after due consideration.

Generally speaking, I tend to feel that all criticism is good criticism. The worst possible outcome for anybody who wishes to communicate his or her ideas, concepts and writings, in my view, is total indifference (no "criticism").

.

Dear Banjo,

I was busy during the weekend so only now can I try to answer your two challenging questions.

Before that, let me say that I agree again with what you wrote in your last post: OK, I should not have called "expression of disapproval" criticism negative. I certainly did not mean negative as a judgement on its merits or so, just a label. It can, and often does, function positively. In classical dialectics the anti-thesis being in a sense the opposite (OK, not negative) of the thesis, provides a "positive" contribution to the process that leads to synthesis. So if you like, I could label the first kind of criticism "antithetic", whereas "constructive criticism" is the process, that in its simplest form is the thesis-antitheis-synthesis dialectics. What you describe as (your) "gestation period of ideas concepts and writings" could perhaps be seen as a kind of multitasking dialectics like constructive criticism.

Still, there are many other meanings of the term criticism, e.g. literary criticism, that you also hinted at, that is supposed to represent the opposite (to where I am more at home) side of C.P. Snow's divide.

The Gabin poem is nice, but is different from the other which addressed our lifelong developing attitude towards father/authority.

Now to your questions. Please keep in mind that I am not a theologian, so I’ll probably sound too amateurish, and possibly "heretic".

>>Are you inferring that you believe the host is neither the physical body of Christ nor simply a symbol of His body but some non-physical form of "reality" which remains to be determined? <<

You are right to speak of the body of  Christ, referring not to (the historical person called) Jesus but to the (second person of the Trinity part of) God-incarnate called Jesus Christ, this relation being defined (albeit not explained) at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). So there is no "physical" body of Christ, only the physical body of the human (Jesus part) of Jesus Christ, which the host is certainly not identical with. (ctd)

(ctd)
Not having theological qualifications I cannot further explain these things. However, even if I could, it would also depend on your qualifications: I could easily explain to a fourth year pure maths student the difference between diffeomorphisms and homemorphisms, but not to a person without the appropriate mathematical prerequisites. The best I could do is to talk about deformations of surfaces, obtained by "stretching and squeezing without tearing" them, etc, as is done in popular texts on algebraic topology, however not the above difference.

This is how I try to explain the fact that it is easy to uncritically accept (or reject) "theological popularisations" of basic tenets of Christianity, but certain nuances have to be left to those who have the historical, metaphysical, ancient languages etc qualifications.

Of course, there is a difference: many people with no theological qualifications find the concept of Jesus Christ (or Jesus the Christ, i.e. Messiah) useful in their life, whereas most people could not care less about diffeomorhisms or homeomorphisms.

After dealing with the "body" part of your question, let me turn to the "symbol". Yes, for many Christians the easiest way to understand the Eucharist is seeing in it a symbol of (the body of) Christ, the Messiah. The Catholic Church is against the use of the word "symbol", because it downplays the "mystery" that the Eucharist is supposed to convey. Again, my understanding of this is that, when I write down "$100" this symbolizes a certain value, whereas if this is written on a banknote issued by the Reserve Bank of Australia, that piece of paper IS worth $100, more than just symbolically . Of, course, for Robinson Crusoe the banknote would be just a worthless piece of paper, like the Eucharist is to "outsiders". (ctd)

(ctd)
I admit, this all can make sense only if one believes in a "non-physical form of reality", which does not remain "to be determined" but to be believed in (and modelled through religions) for reasons that cannot be decided on purely rational grounds (c.f. e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389&page=0#150883 and the sequel; also, Pascal's "Le coeur a des raisons que la raison ne connait pas.)

>>Should I understand that you do not adhere unconditionally to all the official dogma of the Catholic church but that you choose not to express this openly in order to avoid upsetting certain people.<<

I thought I explained this when I wrote "Like I would not criticize the way a primary school teacher explains mathematics to children, although I might rightfully think I have a deeper understanding of it." So yes "not upsetting certain people" is ONE PART OF THE REASON. In the above example it is not only the children, but usually also the teacher (unless he/she has higher mathematical qualifications unnecessary for doing her job) who could get - well not upset in this case but - confused. In matters of faith, "explanations" that are too abstract for the recipient can both confuse and upset.

One speaks of Church "teachings", indicating the appropriateness of comparing its role to that of an educator rather than researcher. It objects to some rebellious Catholic theologians for two reasons: that they might confuse the more “simple minded” believer, but also because they do not want to have these personal opinions presented as official Catholic teaching.

The Church does not object to the research or “teachings” of Protestant theologians - actually many are being read also in Catholic seminaries - the same as I would not object to your opinions, unless you wrongly claimed that they were my opinions.

Well, I am not somebody carrying the label “Catholic theologian”, so I can speculate how to make these things comprehensible to myself. (ctd)

(ctd)
There is one limitation on all this. Your use of the term dogma made me restrict my attention to the "teaching of the Church" regarding articles of faith (the Credo) rather than matters of morals, which are concerned not with how to COMPREHEND but how to ACT in particular situations. Here “understanding abstractions” is not that relevant, but the concept of (“informed”) conscience comes into question. That is a whole Pandora’s box of problems, that I would not like to open here.

Again, I am not sure to what extent I succeeded in answering your two questions, but certainly, thanks for the challenge.

.

Dear George,

.

"...I am not sure to what extent I succeeded in answering your two questions ..."

Thank you, George, you have done a great job on both scores.

If I understand you correctly, your answers can be summed-up in two words: belief and deference.

Belief in the "transformation" of the host to the "non-physical body of Christ".

Deference to the official dogma of the Catholic church.

You even went a little further and kindly indicated that (what I summed-up as) your "belief" and "deference" were founded in the following basic hypothesis:

"... there must be Something ... not reducible to the physical universe ...".

Now if I were to listen to my intuition, I might be tempted to carry that a little further myself and complete your image of "father/authority" to "father/authority/church".

I leave God out of the equation because, in your mind, paradoxically, the notion of God seems to follow the route of "reason" rather than those of "belief" and "deference".

I hope I have not "denatured" your message nor exceeded my aptitude to comprehend the fascinating person who expressed it.

.