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.