...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.

.