The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rome has no monopoly on child abuse > Comments

Rome has no monopoly on child abuse : Comments

By Xavier Symons, published 15/11/2012

While the Roman Catholic Church has to answer for its deficiencies on child abuse, that shouldn't allow others to escape scrutiny.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
And so it begins: having failed to head off investigations or limit their scope, the Catholic Church and its supporters are now trying to dilute their effect by persuading investigators to spend their time and resources looking elsewhere. Yes, if there are any other nation-wide organisations which have systematically protected and facilitated child abusers within their ranks, they should be investigated and stopped: but since there's no evidence whatever to suggest that any group other than the Catholic Church has been involved in this practice, it's clear where the investigations should commence.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 15 November 2012 6:39:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me add that if Xavier or any of his co-religionists have any genuine evidence of systematically condoned child abuse in any other organisation, they should bring it forward immediately, or risk being charged as accessories to crime.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 15 November 2012 6:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't have to be a Catholic supporter to agree with Xavier.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/systemic-abuse-was-not-confined-to-the-catholics/
Posted by Anthony2, Thursday, 15 November 2012 7:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real and important difference is that from the pope on down all of the various "catholic" propagandists pretend that the "catholic" church is the only bastion against what they call the scourge of moral and cultural relativism, and furthermore that it is the ONLY source of truth in the world, and that it has a claim on the lives of ALL human beings.
Some "catholic" propagandists even pretend that the current pope and the policies that he promotes provides the ONLY way of saving Western civilization from itself. Nevermind that Ratzinger was very much involved in the cover up process.
Remember too that priests are supposed to be "icons" of christ or persons of superior moral stature and exemplary behaviour.

Which is to say that the "catholic" church has inevitably and quire rightly been hoisted on the petard of its obvious double-minded hypocrisy.

Meanwhile of course systematic sexual, emotional and physical abuse by both "catholic" priests and nuns too has been a world-wide phenomenon for forever and a day. It is in no sense a recent phenomena.
Check out the various postings on the recent investigations in Ireland. The church hierarchy was very much involved in all of it. Plus do a Google on the sex lives of the popes.
Meanwhile the way in which the vatican and the then pope JPII treated cardinal Bernard Law, and more importantly the founder of Communion & Liberation, Marciel Marcel provides a template for understanding the vaticans official attitude re dealing with KNOWN abusers and those who deliberately perverted/prevented the course of justice.
Law was given sanctuary in the vatican, and Marciel was quietly retired, whereas he should have rotted to death in jail and been stripped of his status/honour as a Saint too.

Furthermore all priests convicted in a courst of law should automatically be instantly excommunicated - no exceptions.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 15 November 2012 7:27:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I imagine State run homes will share the same horrific stories of abuse. But maybe this is an opportunity to keep children safe in the future.

We’ve all heard the flurry of apologies for The Stolen, The Forgotten and recently the Forced Adoptions while still placing children into the hands of Churches and Not-for-Profits. In NSW we’ve sped it up insisting ALL children removed from homes by FaCS be placed into NGO’s by 2017.

It’s time the States stopped scattering the children into the hands of NGO’s. These children are removed by the State and should be the responsibility of the State. One organization should be held accountable for children’s wellbeing for their time in State initiated care and it needs to be the State.

All future Royal Commissions into abuse of children should have one target, The State; it’s laws, it’s policies and the systems in place for the Out-Of-Home-Care of children.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 15 November 2012 8:16:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claiming a disproportionate concentration on the Catholic Church should in no way detract from the serious deficits within that church in regard to abuse. Non-compliance with protocols set in place to address pedophilia need thorough investigation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-14/lawyer-claims-church-fails-to-comply-with-abuse-protocols/4372512
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 15 November 2012 9:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daffy Duck.
It is quite remarkable; that you are to my knowledge, to have mentioned the nuns, in the plethora of what has been written about child abuse.

During the fifties, I travelled to school with quite a few girls who attended the local convent, and it was not unusual for one or another to be in a considerable state of distress because of the actions of their superiors. It would be interesting to hear their stories first hand and see whether our suspicions of mistreatment had any foundations in fact.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 15 November 2012 10:51:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rome may well have no monopoly on child abuse, but does seem to have a peculiar monopoly, on protecting those who do?
Perhaps it's a case, of like attracting like, and or, like protecting and sheltering like?
[Well so and so, was doing it too!]
Is never ever justification, and indeed, the most juvenile justification ever put, of indelible indefensible infeasibility!
The Holy Roman Catholic Church, may not have a monopoly on Child abuse, but it is supposed to have some sort of monopoly, on the so-called moral compass, which if correctly calibrated, would see, perverted defilers defrocked, and then handed over to the appropriate authorities, to be treated, or properly and professionally helped, just like any other offender, or sick son of a bi---.
Simply put, one can't actually chose God; given, it is only ever God, that does all the choosing!
And it is hardly likely, that deceitful perverts; and or, compulsive liars, are on his personal invitation list!?
Therefore, any special treatment argument, that one is somehow serving God, is clearly both null and void, and protecting recidivist offenders, never ever sanctified!
If there were no A.D., man-made requirement, for entirely unnatural celibacy, few if any of these recidivists would be attracted to the Church initially; and if they weren't also serially protected, even fewer would aspire to "HOLY ORDERS"!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 15 November 2012 1:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting assortment of views and opinions for sure ?

As a retired detective, you can be assured these vile crimes are NOT just within the exclusive aegis of the Catholic Church. Nor is it uniquely a crime perpetrated by males.

Sadistic physical punishment has most certainly been committed by females. Females holding all manner of positions of influence. And this violence has been infliced upon both male and female children.

It's quite correct to contend, the overall occurrences of (sexual) abuse of children, has been committed almost entirely by males. In my time, there were only a few substantiated complaints of sexual abuse alleged of females.

For anybody to assert it's common only to members of the Catholic Church, is talking patent nonsense.

Myself, I'm a 'born again atheist'. I left ALL my religious furore back in South Vietnam, in 1967/68.

I care little what you believe or don't believe. Any crime occasioned against a child is both depraved and iniquitous to the extreme.
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 15 November 2012 3:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o sung wu, I agree with your concluding sentence and your observation about males being the predominant molesters.

If you Google images using 'pedophiles' you will see a collection of depraved individuals who, in many cases, look what they are.

Serial molesters should be kept locked up or castrated, one or the other.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 15 November 2012 4:17:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'evening to you DAVID G...

I couldn't agree with you more, when you say significant gaol is what these people deserve, or is it ?

I'm not particularly well educated DAVID G., so I'm quite confused, apropos one significant element of this type of heinous crime. And it is, a crime ?

I was involved in taking a statement from of these blokes, and if it's not generally known, police are required to 'prove' each element of the offence. It's known as the 'Criminal Proofs' of that offence. And each 'Proof' MUST be proved in order to successfully convict the offender.

During this interview, I asked '...what was the reason you decided to touch-up this lad...' or language to that effect ?

He said he didn't know, and I believed him ? It doesn't in anyway remove culpability, but I've often asked other offender's the same question, receiving the same answer.

And I've often asked myself, and other detectives working similar matters -

Are these blokes actually 'sick' or, are they just vile criminals, or is it possible, they're both ?

If they are sick, isn't it possible science may, one day be able to cure 'em, or at the very least chemically control those peculiarly, abnormal urges these people are apparently endowed with ?

I don't know ? Or do we simply lock 'em up for years, at taxpayers expense, and throw away the key ? Or should we merely execute them ?

The Royal Commission, may well uncover a veritable monster, in some of the most respected public institutions in the country ?

And then what ?
Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 15 November 2012 7:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No other group, even if some members are guilty of child sexual abuse, have the albatross of 40 suicides hanging around its neck.

Some catholic brothers and priests in the schools and churches of Ballarat have hung that particular cross around the church's neck.

DCI Peter Fox, on the Lateline program mentioned 400 incidents in the Hunter area almost every one related to a catholic religious or teaching functionary.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 15 November 2012 8:24:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“My flirtations with children soon acquired an erotic character … On several occasions certain kids (5-8 years of age) would open my fly and start to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still. … The problem with liberals is that they only tried to recognize sexuality in then, whereas I was aiming at this sexuality. (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Le Grand Bazar, 1975).

Daniel Cohn Bendit (certainly not a Catholic) is currently a EU parliamentarian, co-president of the group European Greens–European Free Alliance, and except for the extremist Le Pen Party nobody seems to hold his self-confessed "non-violent" pedophile past against him.

As abhorrent as pedophiles are - and perhaps even more so those who covered them - they inherently knew - certainly the Catholics invoved did - what they were doing was wrong - they certainly would never think of boasting about it like this.

Some German, also Green, politicians actually pleaded for the decriminalization of pedofilia in the 1970s and 1980s. Most often the article “Changing the Criminal Law? A Plea for a New, Realistic, Orientation of Sexual Politics” by Volker Beck is beeing quoted, c.f. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatte_um_Abschaffung_des_Sexualstrafrechts_in_Deutschland - sorry I do not know of an English version.

Well, the majority of males are attracted to females but obviously only a minority of them are even potential rapists. Does the same apply to the difference between “soft” (the child a “willing” partner) and “hard” (violent) pedophilia? Does a “soft” only pedophilia experience of a child/minor leave lasting effects on the victim (as the “hard” version obviously does)? Or is "soft" pedophilia just a victimless "orientation" like homosexuality? Would decriminalization (or even encouragement as in the quote above) of "soft" pedophilia lead to an increase in the occurance of its “hard” form?

I do not know the sociologically, psychologically, legally and morally sustainable answers. I only know that preconceived hatreds and emotions are not a good guide.
Posted by George, Thursday, 15 November 2012 10:05:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Alkali metals + water = Explosion!

.

There is ample evidence to prove that catholic priests plus children is an explosive mixture.

It is obviously just as stupid and irresponsible to sit back and wait for the explosion to occur before allowing the police to come in and clean up the mess as it would be to do nothing to prevent alkali metals such as potassium and sodium mixing with water.

For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic nomenklatura stubbornly refuses to admit that both should be kept apart, totally isolated and securely insulated, one from the other.

The Church constantly insists on choosing to ignore the laws of nature. It is like turning a blind eye to the fact that, under no circumstances or for whatever reason, wolves should ever be allowed into the sheep enclosure or the chicken roost.

Risk? What risk? Of course there is no risk. It is of the order of absolute certainty! Proven many times over, beyond all doubt.

The evidence is so flagrant, there must be a very valid reason for such illogical behaviour on the part of those who pretend to be ardent defenders of the faith and aspirants of the highest moral values.

Of course we should forgive them "...for they know not what they do ..." (Luke 23:34). Was it not Satan with a flowing beard, disguised in the casual attire of Jesus, who cunningly ordained: " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me". (Matthew 19:14, King James Bible, Cambridge Ed.).

It is the triumph of evil and, though it is a terrible tragedy of Christian history, there is, regrettably, absolutely nothing we can do to open the eyes of those who have blind faith, and who stubbornmly refuse to see the naked truth.

They would rather die with their (false) beliefs intact. Otherwise, they know they would be lost forever. And that, they cannot accept.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 November 2012 1:08:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Alkali metals + water = Explosion!

.

There is ample evidence to prove that catholic priests plus children is an explosive mixture.

It is obviously just as stupid and irresponsible to sit back and wait for the explosion to occur before allowing the police to come in and clean up the mess as it would be to do nothing to prevent alkali metals such as potassium and sodium mixing with water.

For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic nomenklatura stubbornly refuses to admit that both should be kept apart, totally isolated and securely insulated, one from the other.

The Church constantly insists on choosing to ignore the laws of nature. It is like turning a blind eye to the fact that, under no circumstances or for whatever reason, wolves should ever be allowed into the sheep enclosure or the chicken roost.

Risk? What risk? Of course there is no risk. It is of the order of absolute certainty! Proven many times over, beyond all doubt.

The evidence is so flagrant, there must be a very valid reason for such illogical behaviour on the part of those who pretend to be ardent defenders of the faith and aspirants of the highest moral values.

Of course we should forgive them "...for they know not what they do ..." (Luke 23:34). Was it not Satan with a flowing beard, disguised in the casual attire of Jesus, who cunningly ordained: " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me". (Matthew 19:14, King James Bible, Cambridge Ed.).

It is the triumph of evil and, though it is a terrible tragedy of Christian history, there is, regrettably, absolutely nothing we can do to open the eyes of those who have blind faith, and who stubbornmly refuse to see the naked truth.

They would rather die with their (false) beliefs intact. Otherwise, they know they would be lost forever. And that, they cannot accept.

Too bad for all those innocent child victims !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 November 2012 1:19:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I wrote, “preconceived hatreds and emotions are not a good guide” to … actually to anything, especially a rational debate. The two posts above are a good illustration of that.
Posted by George, Friday, 16 November 2012 1:46:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> ""During this interview, I asked '...what was the reason you decided to touch-up this lad...' or language to that effect ?

"He said he didn't know, and I believed him ? It doesn't in anyway remove culpability, but I've often asked other offender's the same question, receiving the same answer.

"And I've often asked myself, and other detectives working similar matters -

"Are these blokes actually 'sick' or, are they just vile criminals, or is it possible, they're both ?

"If they are sick, isn't it possible science may, one day be able to cure 'em .....

"The Royal Commission, may well uncover a veritable monster, in some of the most respected public institutions in the country ?

"And then what ? "" <<

Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 15 November 2012 7:49:45 PM

It's probably a lack of cognition in many cases - an inability to "think before acting".

I think religious inculcation reduces cognition - people inculcated in religion are more likely 'to be robotic' in their thinking-action dynamic.

Hopefully, aspects of 'why' will be elucidated by a Royal Commission and psychology studies that come out of this.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 16 November 2012 7:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...an inability to think before acting."

It's probably more likely to be a case of a lack of constraint where the usual social controls against such actions are mitigated by the contrived setting and circumstances. Added to this may be the notion that the institution, under whose auspices one is operating, has a reputation to uphold - and that this reputation is paramount to its ongoing patronage and survival. Under these circumstances it's a dubious proposition that an accused pedophile would be swiftly dealt with. As is now being revealed in the Saville case concerning the BBC...almost unbelievably, that such blatant pedophilia was rampant and unchecked for so long....it's the culture of cover up at the top of the institution that provides fertile ground for pedophilia to flourish.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 16 November 2012 8:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

“Preconceived hatreds and emotions are not a good guide to … actually to anything, especially a rational debate”.

With all due respect, I am not sure you are right there, George.

My Concise Oxford Dictionary indicates that "hatred" is a "strong dislike of or strong aversion to".

I think that such feelings could be quite conducive to debate, particularly as they are likely to provoke the rightful "indignation" of the person having such feelings.

Forgive me for being pedant, but, according to my dictionary, "indignation" means "anger excited by supposed meanness, injustice, wickedness, or misconduct".

Certainly, debate is an intellectual exercise but feelings of "strong dislike" and "indignation" may be an excellent source of motivation for engaging debate and a "good guide" throughout.

Indifference, on the other hand, would be, in my opinion, a poor guide from start to finish.

Need I add that religious dogma and blind faith leave little room for the "rational debate" you seek and obviously value, as I think we all do on this forum.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 16 November 2012 8:01:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does bother me that the Catholic Church seems to be trying to deflect attention. My local priest, and the chaplain of the Catholic school at which I work, is a truly remarkable man who - to the best of my knowledge - is beyond reproach in the wonderful things he does with and for our kids. That church leaders seem desperate to adopt the role of "victim" sullies his reputation as well.

That said, it is true that the Catholic Church is not alone here. The most notable sex abuse scandal I can recall in this region comes from an Anglican school. We once had a Governor-General - an Anglican bishop - who was discredited and ended up resigning because of his role in covering up sex abuse within that church.

Is it just churches? Or is it endemic in a broader group of organisations - possibly all organisations - that actively engage with children in the name of "welfare"?

Cardinal Pell needs to suck it up, cooperate with the investigation and put on a public display - backed by actual action - of ensuring that these atrocities and their cover-ups are stamped out for good. Past wrongs cannot be undone. They must, however, be acknowledged and addressed. I suspect it is impossible to prevent all future wrongdoing in any organisation that employs fallible human beings. But measures must be taken to ensure that the fallible fall and their victims do not. The Catholic Church presents itself as a bastion of morality. It needs to start being just that.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 16 November 2012 9:16:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

.
This is war, Otokonoko. We Christian soldiers are fully mobilized behind the cross, with a single intent: DEFEND THE CHURCH AT ALL COST.

Please do not distract us.

It's not the moment to talk about innocent child victims, past or present.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Forget about the atrocities and the cover-ups. You have to choose who's side you're on.

The investigators can't hurt us. We just have to out-smart them.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Don't worry about Cardinal Pell. He's got his orders straight from the Pope himself.

He knows what he has to do.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Everything will be all right, Otokonoko. Just fall in line behind us

and sing the refrain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTJMQ38bnoY - (all together !)

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all in Australia,
One in hope and doctrine, one in paedophilia.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 17 November 2012 2:01:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I was not referring to any kind of debate, but to rational debate, where a detached view and analysis - as much as a debater is capable of it - and rational arguments have a better chance of arriving at insights into the positions of others, than emotions, indignation, hatred and other “excellent sources of motivation”, whether they arise from “religious dogma and blind faith” (whatever you mean by that) or from other one-sided views.

The preceding two posts are a good example. If you really think that your response to Otokonoko is on the same rational level, providing insights into the topic under consideration at the same level, as his original post, then we just have to leave it at that, agreeing that we have different ideas of what constitutes a rational debate.
Posted by George, Saturday, 17 November 2012 3:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

"The preceding two posts are a good example. If you really think that your response to Otokonoko is on the same rational level, providing insights into the topic under consideration at the same level, as his original post, then we just have to leave it at that, agreeing that we have different ideas of what constitutes a rational debate".

Not at all, George, I am sure you have no difficulty recognizing that my post, which you refer to, is a parody, a type of satire.

I consider that the technique employed also has its place in a rational debate.

But perhaps you are of a different opinion and I would welcome your views on this.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 17 November 2012 4:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>>I consider that the technique employed also has its place in a rational debate.<<
That only confirms what I wrote above that we have different ideas about what constitutes a rational (in distincion to, say, derogatory) debate.

>>But perhaps you are of a different opinion and I would welcome your views on this.<<
What do you think the reaction on this OLO would be if in a debate on, say, the existence or not of God, somebody offered as rational argument a parody or satire on the Atheist Foundation of Australia or some other institution (or world view) carrying the word ‘atheist’ in its name? Irrespective of the reaction, it would hardly be accepted - and that not only by atheists - as a viable contribution to the debate.
Posted by George, Saturday, 17 November 2012 8:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your explanations and clarifications.

Please allow me, in turn, to refer you to the British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic, Bertrand Russell, whose debating techniques are not generally considered to be of an irrational nature.

In his 1952 article "Is there a God", Russell coined an analogy in order to parody religious argument. This is " Russell's teapot". Here is the link to the article:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

Contemporary versions of "Russell's teapot" are the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Though parodies of this nature are generally not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result, they are an appeal to common sense which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way".

Cicero pointed out that the orator had to take into account the common sense of the crowd if he were to influence them. John Locke seems to have been of a similar state of mind in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".

William of Ockham and his "Ockham's razor" maxim is not exactly at odds with this principle in so far as it celebrates the virtue of simplicity as a criterion of choice among competing theories.

These are some of the reasons, George, why I feel justified in thinking that parody as an appeal to common sense has its place in rational debate.

Which, of course, does not exclude the fact that parody is just as falsifiable as anything else you may consider to be authentic rational debate.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 18 November 2012 12:22:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I also thank you for making me think and formulate what I want to say more carefully. I understand your post as confirming that we have different understandings of what is rational debate.

As for “Russell’s teapot” - an example of something whose existence cannot be verified (by methods available to science) - it is not so much a parody, as an analogy and, as you rightly point out, “an appeal to common sense” (which today is dubious even when trying to understand physical reality as conveyed through quantum physics, not to mention metaphysics). The message is clear: “belief in the existence of God is like belief in that teapot”. The same about the other two examples.

On the other hand, you have Pailey’s watch and watchmaker (extended by Stephen Barr into "Paley finds a watch and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point.”).

These are all analogies, reassuring to those who see it the same way, and making others think deeper about their reasons for not seeing it that way.

I fail to see something like this in your "Onward, Christian soldiers" post, although this is probably due to the difference not so much in our world views as in what we call rational in a debate.

>>Cicero pointed out that the orator had to take into account the common sense of the crowd if he were to influence them<<
Exactly, the orator - or religious preacher or Richard Dawkins - when talking to a “crowd” that he wants to influence, which is not exactly my idea of a rational debate.
Posted by George, Sunday, 18 November 2012 8:13:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

I think you've summed it up quite well.

The thing that bothers me most with your definition of what constitutes a rational debate is that, in my view, it is a little too clinical. Dare I say, a little too "inhuman" for my liking.

It gives me the impression that the subject matter is "laboratory experiment" or "scientific research" rather than human debate.

Let us not forget that we human beings are warm blooded creatures with character, personality, energy and imagination. We are not robots, computers or machines operating on artificial intelligence.

Rationality, it seems, is not an exact science. Scientific progress is not necessarily due to any so-called rational process. I understand it is often due to some inexplicable, unexpected, fortuitous flash of inspiration, what we call "a stroke of genius".

I am sure you are familiar with the works of the German sociologist, philosopher and political economist, Max Weber. No doubt you are more familiar than I am with his writings on rationality and rationalization.

I understand he saw four types of rationality: practical, theoretical, substantive and formal. From what I can gather, he was seeking to identify and analyse universal characteristics of socio-cultural patterns, which, of course, is not necessarily pertinent to the question in hand of "what constitutes a rational debate".

It is nevertheless indicative of the polymorphous nature of the notion of "rationality" and I mention it for this reason.

I'll leave it at that as I feel I am getting into deep water.

I am sorry you did not like my "Onward, Christian soldiers" parody. Not only does it seem rational to me, but, I must confess I secretly consider that to be an understatement. I honestly think the scenario will prove to be fairly close to reality. Time will tell.

Am I right in guessing that even if it does turn out to be close to reality, you will, nevertheles, still consider my parody to be irrational ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 19 November 2012 8:43:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for challenging me.

We keep on agreeing that we disagree on what we see as rational debate (I did not, and would not dare to, offer an explicit definition). Now you speak of “human debate”. I am not sure what you mean by that, but I certainly did not see your “parody”, apparently dictated by some negative life experiences and emotions, as “inhuman” or “irrational”, only that - since you formulated it as a response to Otokonoko - I did not see it as an argument addressing his analysis/views (on matters this thread is about) in a way that Otokonoko, or anybody else, could respond with a counter-argument.

You are right about the “deep water” concerning rationality as such, since it is such a basic philosophical concept that you can describe it only using other undefined concepts.

Usually one speaks of the tripple
(a) AESTHETIC (“primordial”, “unanalysed”, “semiconscious”) experience (Erlebnis in German),
(b) RATIONAL (thought processes, analyses) thinking,
(c) MORAL (following some norms) actions,
corresponding to the three norms, or ideals or primary categories: BEAUTY, TRUTH and GOODNESS of Plato. I am used to looking at the world (outside and inside me) though these three “lenses”. Well, some deep water indeed that I do not want to elaborate on.

I do not understand what you mean by your post being “close to reality”. Of course, there is an English hymn called "Onward, Christian soldiers”, so that is not only close to, but it is, a reality. If you want me to say whether I agree with this or that statement, you have to make it explicit. On the other hand, I can sense the emotions conveyed by the “parody”, and I think you will not be surprised that I do not share them.
Posted by George, Monday, 19 November 2012 10:23:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

It's always a pleasure exchanging with you. We seem to be so different that whatever you have to say, I learn something that I would otherwise never have imagined.

Why "human debate"? Because I was opposing it to possible debate with a robot or a computer, e.g., similar to the two match chess competition between Gary Kasparof and Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer (as you will recall, the human won the first match and the computer won the second).

I thought my parody replied almost line by line to Otokonoko's concerns though it is quite obvious that it was not the sort of reply he was expecting. Like all satires, the parody has a somewhat destabilizing effect. Its form produces a psychological impact that jolts the mind out of its traditional way of thinking and, unless there are major intellectual or psychological barriers or prejudices, opens up new (common sense) perspectives.

At the end of the day, I think Otokonoko, like most defenders of the Catholic Church, will be happy to take comfort in what will probably be the "happy end" (for the Church) of the Royal Commission's investigation, as predicted in the parody - though, perhaps, a little disappointed that the roots of the problem will largely remain undisturbed and unattended, deeply imbedded within its structure.

Thank you for sharing your three "lenses" with me. I am sure they are useful tools and will help me understand your way of seeing things.

What I meant by the eventuality of the parody proving to be "close to reality" is the eventuality that the scenario described in the parody (or something very similar to it) actually takes place in real life. Though it may seem farfetched today, imagine that things actually happen (more or less) as described in the parody.

My question then is: am I right in thinking you will still consider that my parody has no place in "rational debate", despite the fact that, as things finally turn out, it proves to correspond , (more or less), to what will have actually occurred ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 1:02:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again for your reaction, which made me reread for the x-th time both Otokonoko’s post and your response ridiculing the Catholic Church in general (not just its involvement with the peadophile scandals) without addressing Otokonoko’s claims/opinions. Or those of the article claiming this was ultimately not so much a 'Catholic' problem as an institutional problem, because institutions in general protect their own, obstruct inquiries.

Otokonoko: “It does bother me that the Catholic Church seems to be trying to deflect attention. … That church leaders seem desperate to adopt the role of "victim" sullies his reputation as well. … Cardinal Pell needs to suck it up, cooperate with the investigation and put on a public display - backed by actual action - of ensuring that these atrocities and their cover-ups are stamped out for good.” This to me does not sound as if Otokonoko was a “defender of the Catholic Church” in these matters.

If I understand your “predictions”, you do not trust the Royal Commission’s ablility to arrive at a fair and just verdict. What investigative body would you then trust, a kangaroo court?

I thought I already answered your last question. As far as its formulation is concerned, how would you like a question like “am I right in thinking you are still an atheist despite the fact that, as things finally turn out, it proves to correspond (more or less), to …” insert here e.g. a similarly sweeping association of atheism with Communism.

I think we have now repeatedly confirmed that we not only have very different world-view perspectives - at least as far as the meaning, merits and faults of Christianity and Catholicism are concerned - but also have different views of what is rational debate, and different tastes, as far as posting ridiculing “parodies” about other people’s world views are concerned.

Beside that, I think we have begun to go around in circles. Nevertheless, thanks for this opportunity to clarify things to myself.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 8:50:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
Dear George,
.
It took me almost 60 years to discover and understand how religion and belief in the supernatural and deity came about. I had had an open mind on the question until then.

It has been a long, slow process endeavouring to put the jig-saw puzzle together. When I finally succeeded I was quite startled by what I saw. It was almost a physical experience. My mind cleared, my heart lightened and I experienced a profound sense of tranquility and satisfaction. I had finally understood the origins and development of the concept of the supernatural and deity beyond all reasonable doubt.

During those 60 years, I had a favourable opinion of religion and still do to a certain extent. Religion plays an important role in social cohesion and solidarity, though its force of inertia and hypocrisy in respect of moral norms and behaviour have become a major source of human tragedy.

The Australian Royal Commission on child sex abuse is the latest of a number of similar investigations carried out in various countries in respect of paedophilia practised by members of the Catholic Church over the past century. The close relationships and interdependency of the Church with politicians, governments, and the constituency are such that even the most rigorous of investigations inevitably fail to produce changes of any real significance.

The Commission's report obliges government to fire a warning shot of canonball across the bows of the Church. That is the signal for the Church to wave a couple of brochures the Vatican will have already sent it, outlining a series of innocuous reforms and procedures destined to placate public outrage. The media are invited to witness this exchange to allow parents to continue to entrust their fledglings to the clergy without any feeling of guilt.

Unlike captains of commerce and industry, politicians and media moguls, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church considers it bears no responsibility for the endemic criminal activity within its organisation. In similar situations, the former resign promptly, the latter never feels personally concerned.

They obviously do not share common moral values.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 2:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thank you for the sincere words. I appreciate very much the fact that you address them to me (without parody, ridicule or sarcasm).

I am not going to take it sentence by sentence stating where I am of the same opinion, where not, where I think one could offer a counter argument, etc. I do not think you expect me to do that.

We all have our personal experience shaping our choice of this or that world view - theist or atheist, Christian/Catholic or antichristian/anticatholic, etc - which is OK as long as we remain open minded, and do not feel the urge to condemn or ridicule world-view perspectives that are different.

Let me just say that you mix questions of metaphysics, a sort of bridge between philosophy of science and philosophy of religion - where I think I have some insight of mine, and have written a lot about it also on this OLO - with other things only marginally related. In particular, I am no expert in law, psychology etc to write something qualified about the problem of Catholic Church and peadophilia/pederasty (neverthelss, I once got myself involved in the discussions here, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3565#85296). In this thread I only dared to ask some questions (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#247576) hoping that somebody more versed in psychology or sociology might offer an answer. As you know, nobody was interested in responding.

Let me finish with repeating that I appreciate having this insight into your inmost thinking. Maybe you will remember that some time ago I also provided you with an insight into where I was coming from, what shaped my understanding of the world.

Neither of us will live long enough to see which of these two orientations will prevail in the far away future.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 8:51:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

It is nice to see you understand and that it is not just with your intelligence.

I think you will have recognized the second half of my post as the deciphered version of the parody or should I say the source of inspiration for the parody.

I hijacked Otokonoko's post for the purpose of the parody as a virus invades a human cell and uses it to form an invading army. The parody was not directed against Otokonoko. His post was simply the framework which allowed me to construct the parody - the rearrangement of an existing architecture - producing a new form and conferring on it a totally different sense.

Naturally, opinions may differ from those expressed in the parody, not only yours, but mine also. As you rightly suggest, many perfectly valid counter arguments are possible. I am sure we could both find several.

How could I possibly forget that interesting insight you gave to your own life experiences? Of course they shaped your understanding of the world. Though, with time and experience, you may manage to see them through one or two of your other "lenses", or perhaps, if you line them up in parallel, through all three at once.

I think you, too, will recall that I indicated, some time back, that I see OLO as a laboratory in which I may experiment ideas and opinions. I come here with my blocks of Carrara marble hoping that a Michelangelo (such as yourself) might chip off the rough edges and produce a David or a Pieta.

To complete the picture, my religious family is the Church of England, a branch of the Catholic genealogical tree. I have been branded as a member of that fold, but also have sympathies for the social work of The Salvation Army and the philosophy of Buddhism. I do not adhere to any religious dogma nor practice any religious rites or ceremonies.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time but intend to do my best to address the two links you indicated, in a subsequent post.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 22 November 2012 12:19:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Does the same apply to the difference between “soft” (the child a “willing” partner) and “hard” (violent) pedophilia?<<

There is no such thing as 'soft' pedophilia George: children cannot give informed consent.

>>Does a “soft” only pedophilia experience of a child/minor leave lasting effects on the victim (as the “hard” version obviously does)?<<

No, because 'soft' only pedophilia is in the unicorns and honest politicians category: the non-existent category. Since they're all 'hard' they all scar the victims to some degree.

>>Or is "soft" pedophilia just a victimless "orientation" like homosexuality?<<

No. It's a fiction invented by groups like NAMBLA:

http://www.nambla.org/

Trying to get society to decriminalize an activity which we know to have devastating effects on the victims. Thankfully I can't see them having much luck because you don't need much common sense to see that children don't have the capacity to give consent.

>>Would decriminalization (or even encouragement as in the quote above) of "soft" pedophilia lead to an increase in the occurance of its “hard” form?<<

Yes. See above point about all occurrences of pedophilia being occurrences of 'hard' pedophilia.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 22 November 2012 5:43:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mostly because it seems initially counterintuitive, number 8 on the list of the top 10 most psychopathic professions from 'The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What saints, spies and serial killers can teach us about success' by Professor Kevin Dutton (Research psychologist and honorary affiliated member of the Calleva Research Centre for Evolution and Human Sciences, Magdalen College, University of Oxford), caught my eye:

1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (TV/radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police officer
8. Clergyperson
9. Chef
10. Civil servant

According to the dictionary definition, a psychopath is a person with amoral or antisocial behaviour, someone who displays egocentricity, or a person who lacks empathy and the ability to establish meaningful personal relationships.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 22 November 2012 6:32:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Lavis,

Thanks for your answers. Of course, I agree with what you wrote. The point I was trying to make was that whatever excuses could be found for pedophile inclinations, they do not apply to the person who boasts about them or wants pedophilia to be decriminalized, since these things could hardly be explained as some “orientation” given in the person’s genes. Compared to pedophile priests, as abhorrent as their actions were, they never boasted about them (thus indirectly exonerating, even encouraging, others).

Today, of course, Cohn-Bendit and other Europeans of the "generations 68" are backpedalling.
Posted by George, Thursday, 22 November 2012 8:51:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Sex crimes are rampant in society. Rape is the number one of all major crimes in the world. It is increasingly employed against civilian populations in armed conflicts.

Psychological causes are multiple. Sociological and religious attitudes are aggravating factors. Justice is largely inoperative due to the intimate nature of the crimes - no witnesses, no material evidence not attributable to other causes, no proof of lack of consent on the part of the victim.

Most crimes are committed in the home of either the aggressor or the victim. They are either relatives or close acquaintances. A large percentage do not involve physical violence. Many crimes are never reported.

In the case of very young children the aggressor abuses of his position of influence and authority in order to plant the seeds of desire in his victim, progressively bringing it to fruition until the victim finally does whatever it is the aggressor wants him or her to do, without having to take the slightest initiative himself. There is no violence or physical force, nor is there any evidence of psychological coercion.. The victim is persuaded that it is he or she who is the depraved one and the sole person responsible for whatever occurred, the aggressor being the victim. This is called child "grooming".

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counterproductive. It achieves exactly the opposite result from that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it.

Misplaced ideology is at the root of the problem. The logical cure consists in reversing the burden of proof for sex crimes, at least in the case of young children. Perhaps also for adults but with the obligation to produce at least one or two circumstancila evidences.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 22 November 2012 7:59:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Cohn-Bendit was one of the leaders of the student riots in France in May 1968. He gave me a special "press" pass to help me get through the lines of riot police and students blocking the entrance to the Odéon Theatre in Paris, occupied by the students. My wife was a newspaper reporter and she had to cover the student occupation of the theatre day and night.

We had been married a couple of months previously and I used to buy some sandwiches and join her after work so that we could see each other and share a meal together.

I certainly do not approve his paedophilia activities cited in your post. If he was "boasting" about it and not simply being honest, I find that even worse.

It is a unique characteristic of French culture that it has what I can only describe as a mature attitude to sexual relationships. Its strong Catholic tradition outlaws deviant sexual behaviour ... in theory. In practice it is much more liberal, if not libertine. Dominique Strauss - Kahn is no exception. France was home to the Marquis de Sade. French heads of state since the revolution of 1789 have been notorious "lovers". One of the presidents, Felix Faure, died in the arms of a prostitute. His aides had to cut off her hair to release her from his dying embrace.

This is significative of French culture at all levels of society.

Frederic Mitterrand, the nephew of François Mitterrand, was Minister for Culture under Nicholas Sarkozy. He wrote a book entitled "The Bad Life" in which he declared “I got into the habit of paying for boys ... The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire I no longer needed to restrain or hide. All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market, excite me enormously. One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint, but it pleases me beyond the reasonable.”

His book became a best seller. He remained in office until the following election.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 23 November 2012 2:59:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Sorry to take so long to thank you for the three posts.

As to the first, we apparently share many things, e.g. I also appreciate and support the work of Salvation Army. I also came closer into contact with Buddhism during my sabbatical at UC Berkeley (CA) in 1976, and later through friendship with a Malaysian Chinese, living in Australia, a Buddhist monk who converted to Catholicism, even studied theology in Rome but then married (his son attended kindergarten with my daughter). He was very much in favour of Catholicism learning Buddhism. Unfortunately, he passed away relatively young. It was his inspiration that made me read the Buddhist:

“before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers”

as

“before you study philosophy (of science and of religion), the concepts and propositions of your Christian beliefs have absolute validity; while you are studying philosophy (of science and of religion), the concepts and propositions of Christian beliefs are loosing their validity; but once you have had enlightenment through philosophy, they regain their validity as symbols modeling reality underlying your faith”.

As to the second post, I see pedophilia in the same light as you in your very accurate description (my distinction between hard and soft - I think the technical term for it is statutory rape - was rather artificial, as Tony Lavis aptly pointed out). Including the difficulties you hint at re “presumption of innocence”. As there are innocent “rapists” falsely accused by alleged victims of “adult” rape, (a fact cleverly exploited by actual rapists' defense attorneys), so also in the case of pedophilia there are innocent “pedophiles” when the alleged child victim’s “testimony” is wrongly (or even tendentiously) interpreted by the child psychologist.

Even cases of intentional false accusations happen, as this example from an exCommunist country illustrates:
(ctd)
Posted by George, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:18:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)
(In 2009) the Bratislava I District Prosecutor's Office decided to halt criminal prosecution of three members of the Franciscan order charged as accomplices in the sexual molestation of two boys. The office later halted the proceedings, concluding that the alleged offence did not happen.(http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/37219/10/slovak_police_wont_apologise_to_accused_franciscan_friars.html).

As to your third post, Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a well known political personality also in Germany. He si actually a German Jew, and I think his French is as flawless and free of foreign accent as is his German.

I agree with what you wrote about the French “mature” (I would add "and morally relaxed") attitude towards sex, however pedophilia or other cases of rape are not just about sex (as the cases of Mitterand, Strauss-Kahn probably are) but also about violence, where I do not think a relaxed approach would be appropriate, bringing me back to where I agree with Tony Lavis that one should not distinguish between “hard” and “soft” pedophilia.

By the way, I think that in general, the Eastern civilisations (China etc) have a traditionally more natural and relaxed attitude towards sex than the more Western ones underpinned by the three Abrahamic religions. Both sexual drive as sin, and pornography, are western "inventions".
Posted by George, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Yes, it's good to have cleared the air on that one, George. Now we know where we both stand. Not too far from each other, apparently. It makes life easier and facilitates communication.

According to the latest statistics, a woman is raped in France every seven minutes and only 10% lodge an official complaint with the police. The reasons given are that they do not want it to be known; police are often very sceptical of their declarations and consider they only got what they were looking for; very few criminal cases actually succeed; the whole thing is too traumatising and they just want to forget it.

Justice needs a very serious overhaul indeed if it is to address these problems effectively.

As regards Buddhist philosophy, it seems there are various schools of thought and I am certainly no expert on that. One of those which strikes a common note with me is the Theravada which I understand says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith.

I think you will recognize me in that one, George.

.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 24 November 2012 7:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks again. I am not sure what “blind faith” means, and how it is to be distinguished from “non-blind faith”. “Critical investigation and reasoning” underlies modern science, and it was not a Buddhist but a Christian culture that gave birth to it, as painful as this birth was, including the screaming mother-Church.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, from what I know, Theravada Buddhism - in distinction to Mahayana and Vajrayana to which the Dalai Lama belongs - is the oldest surviving school of Buddhist thought. So if one is allowed a crude analogy with Christianity, Theravada is the “Catholic” and the others the “Protestant” branches. I do not understand very much the differences. For me the most comprehensible Buddhist thinker is Dalai Lama (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9368#152712).

However, I am afraid, we have drifted very far away from the original topic of this thread.
Posted by George, Saturday, 24 November 2012 8:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for those indications on Buddhism.

I make a distinction between "faith" and "blind faith" as follows:

In my terminology, "faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 24 November 2012 11:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks for explaining your terminology. So you speak of “faith” (that is not blind) if there is “circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)”, and “blind faith” where there are no such things.

I thought when speaking of “circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness” (e.g. in the court of law) one doesn’t use the term “faith”. For me only the second case makes sense when referring to metaphysical assumptions. Even so, the English language - in distinction to e.g. German or Slavic languages, and also French (well, you know better) - can distinguish between religious faith (as a state or disposition of mind) and religious beliefs (as what is called “intellectual consent”). So even in the second case, for what you call “blind faith” I would use the word “belief”, especially “a priori belief” (the matter is more complicated since “I believe”, “Ich glaube”, “Je crois” is often the equivalent of “I think”, “Ich denke”, “Je pense”).

As I wrote elsewhere, in my view there are in principle only two such metaphysical “a priori beliefs” (presuppositions, axioms): Either - as Carl Sagan put it -
(i) that the physical universe/reality is all there is, without cause and without purpose, or
(ii) that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe of which it is the cause and purpose, which Itself has no cause and no purpose.

(Scientific theories represent or model the structure of physical reality, religions play a similar role in modeling that Something sub(ii) for those who believe in it.)

Of course, neither (i) nor (ii) can be supported by “circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)” acceptable to everybody. There is no rational way to decide a priori in favour of the one or the other presupposition: one decides for the one or the other depending on other, personal, educational, cultural, etc, factors.

Gosh, I have drifted even further away from the original topic. So let me just thank you again for making me clarify my terminology (also) to myself.
Posted by George, Sunday, 25 November 2012 8:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Carl Sagan's problematic of God or no God leads to a dead end.

By an historical, perhaps I should say, anthropological, investigation of the development of human ideas I approached the question with an open mind to see why the question arose in the first place, how it originated and developed.

I came to the understanding that it was provoked essentially by fear and awe at the power, fury and beauty of nature with which man felt the need to communicate in order to placate it and express his fear or gratitude and recognition of its superiority. He invented the concept of supernatural beings as an explanation of the natural phenomenon he feared or admired and developed a strategy of survival based on that concept, offering human and animal sacrifice as scapegoats to spare the rest of society from its wrath.

The concept of anthropomorphic gods developed from this, followed by that of the Unique God, the jealous God, who forbade the worship of all other Gods. The Concept of the Unique God as the father of mankind, the all powerful ruler, mirrored the structure of the human family.

I realised that all this symbolism had become deeply embedded in the human psyche ever since mankind separated from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee 5 to 7 million years ago and continues to exercise an important influence, even on the most evolved intellects today.

Blaise Pascal calculated that belief in a God was a safe bet but he seems to have left some important elements - such as the holy wars (Crusades), the Inquisition, Nazi ethno-religious ideology, and religious fanaticism - out of the equation. There have been tremeandous losses and It is still not a safe bet for everyone.

Modern democracies have developed within their courts of justice what are considered to be the most efficient procedures for determining the truth. Nevertheless, absolute certainty is rarely achieved. Faith-based judgments are the norm. Happily, though, not judgments based on blind faith, where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no reliable eye witness.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 26 November 2012 8:08:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Please note that there was no mention of God or supernatural beings in my previous post, exactly because today there is no understanding of these concepts that would be shared by everybody. They are so basic that they cannot be formally defined, and their understanding has varied throughout (Western) history: for instance, different phenomena were seen as “supernatural” during the Middle Ages, and different things by those who still use that term today.

What I built my (i) and (ii) alternatives on was another basic concept, namely physical reality (i.e. reality accessible in principle by science) which also would need some explanation to do, but somehow is more accessible via contemporary insight from the philosophy of science than God and the supernatural. Thus (ii) was formulated as a belief that there is a “dimension” (feature, aspect) of reality that is not reducible to physical reality, i.e. that is beyond the reach of (natural) science.

Please remember that I had a basic atheist (Marx-Leninist) education so I am familiar with the conclusion atheists draw from the more or less standard account of how religion came about that you presented here. You could similarly describe the anthropological, prehistoric and historic sources of mathematics. I would disagree only if you used these facts to make conclusions about the validity of this or that mathematical theorem, or applicability and usefulness for practical purposes of this or that branch of contemporary mathematics.

Pascal’s wager is a relatively simple thought construction meaningful only for those who accept his (at his time universal) understanding of “God” (and somehow tacitly assuming that “afterlife in heaven” was the only reason for a person to follow the Christian way of life). I do not see how Inquisition or Nazis fit into that scheme.

I think we have indeed started to talk past each other. Apologies if it is because of me not being able to make my point of view more intelligible.
Posted by George, Monday, 26 November 2012 9:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

"I am familiar with the conclusion atheists draw from the more or less standard account of how religion came about that you presented here"

I was not an atheist during the 60 years of my investigation. Having finally understood that the supernatural and deity are purely human concepts with no existence in reality, the question which had remained open in my mind all those years was settled.

That does not alter the fact that I still consider myself a Catholic (non-papist), that my religious family is the Church of England and that I have sympathies for the social work of The Salvation Army and the philosophy of Buddhism.

I presume that having taken a bite of the apple of the tree of knowledge, I am now banished from the Garden of Eden and considered a heretic, an infidel and an atheist.

Never mind, I am surely no worse off than Joan of Arc, Galileo or Mary MacKillop.

"You could similarly describe the anthropological, prehistoric and historic sources of mathematics. I would disagree only if you used these facts to make conclusions about the validity of this or that mathematical theorem ...".

The comparison you make here is not strictly analogous to the model it refers to. For it to be analogous, you would need to say: "I would disagree only if you used these facts to make conclusions about the existence of mathematics".

Indeed, I am tempted to say that, like the supernatural and deity, mathematics is a purely human concept with no existence in reality. But I should be delighted if you would convince me of the contrary.

Your interpretation of Pascal's wager seems to be a fairly personal one. The usual conclusion is "that a rational person should live as though God exists" (simply because it might be true).

Pascal's chief argument that "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" is false because many people have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and assassinated for their religious beliefs. Hence my reference, inter alia, to the Inquisition and Nazi ethno-religious ideology.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 1:47:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Apologies if I wrongly concluded, from the way you presented your account of the sources of religion that you considered yourself an atheist. I know that my teachers called themselves atheists, but I also know (e.g. also from discussions on this OLO) that today the term "atheist" has many different meanings. I don’t want to open that can of worms again.

>>the supernatural and deity are purely human concepts with no existence in reality<<
Well, as I see it, the problem is not with supernatural and deity but with what one understands by “existence in reality”.

Horses "exist in reality", unicorns don’t, this however, is not that simple when talking about more abstract purely human concepts like e.g. quarks, electromagnetic or other fields, space-time, states of a physical system, Lagrangians, phlogiston, aether etc. The last two concepts turned out to be of only temporary usefulness when trying to explain physical reality, the others seem to be more lasting and useful.

Something similar holds about God, supernatural beings and other “purely human concepts” that try to explain reality beyond what science can explain. As I wrote above, scientific theories represent or model the structure of physical reality - the concepts I listed above are parts of them - religions play a similar role in representing/modeling that Something sub(ii) for those who believe in it; and the concepts of God, divinities etc are usually parts of that representation.

In physics, mathematical models play a crucial role (besides visual ones), in religion mythological and anthropomorphic models, play a similar role (besides other e.g. parables in Christianity. It is not easy do decide which physical theory adequately represents which part of physical reality, and in the case of religious representations of reality this is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED since the representations essentially involve the very subject who does the representaion (i.e. believes in ...) with his/her personal, cultural etc. determinants.
(ctd)
Posted by George, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 7:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)
Please understand that I am not defending position (ii) - or (i) - only trying to clarify my understanding of the dilemma on the background of epistemological similarities as I see them. And I am certainly not trying to convert you!

Although I am grateful to you for challenging me to express my views on these matters in only very few words, I am still afraid, that I am not making myself understood, for which, of course, I am not blaming you but myself.

>>you would need to say: "I would disagree only if you used these facts to make conclusions about the existence of mathematics”<<
This just shows that we indeed have different understandings of the word “existence”: surely mathematics, astronomy, astrology, chemistry, alchemy, religion, politics etc all exist. You cannot deny the existence of religion or any other of these, you can only have opinions about their contents, usefulness, etc.

I still maintain that Pascal had in mind an individual, his contemporary, who believed or not in God, heaven and hell, and had to make a decision on these things, and not on becoming or not “tortured and assasinated” by whomever.

I see I wrote more than I intended to, although, as mentioned, I am afraid we have reached a stage when we are talking past each other.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 27 November 2012 8:03:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

I am sure you are right in thinking we still have a lot to learn about what "exists in reality" and what does not - not just within our galaxy but beyond - from the infinitely small to the infinitely large.

You write: "surely mathematics, astronomy, astrology, chemistry, alchemy, religion, politics etc all exist". Am I not right in thinking that these are particular types of knowledge and beliefs which exist in our minds - the fruit of our intellect, our imagination?

Philosophers generally make a distinction between thought and reality, defining the latter as "the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined". This would seem to suggest that the various intellectual endeavours you mention do not, in fact, "exist in reality".

Carl Sagan's second proposition (ii) "that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe of which it is the cause and purpose, which Itself has no cause and no purpose ", has an à priori interest due to the fact that it was posited by a well known American astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist.

A proposition in this sense is, of course, no more than the indication of a possibility. Sagan described himself as an agnostic. His wife declared after his death that he was "not a believer" and that they knew they "would never see each other again".

Please be assured that I can see and appreciate that you are "certainly not trying to convert" me. Having had the privilege of learning something of your early life, I must say that your own world view is perfectly logic and comprehensible to me.

Allow me to add that I have found this exchange quite positive. It's time for me to take a bow and wish you well until our paths cross again on this forum which I look forward to with pleasure.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 12:30:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

May I reciprocate what you wrote in your last sentence by saying that I also found this opportunity to exchange views with you quite positive, and - let me add - also fruitful for myself.

However, there is one thing I have to respond to. It is a misunderstanding that illustrates the clumsiness of my English:

What I call Sagan’s maxim (that I also referred to a couple of times on this OLO) is what I listed as alternative (i), full stop. See “The (physical) cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be”, the opening lines of his book and landmark television series. I thought he considered himself an atheist, even materialist. I am not aware of Sagan even considering the alternative (ii) as a rational possibility.

The alternative (ii) - a logical negation of (i) - is purely my construction. It was a reaction to many atheists’ claims on this OLO that they neither believed God (gods, divinities, etc) existed nor that He/they did not exist. They put their position as “lack (or absence) of belief”. So I formulated my own position also as being based on a “lack (or absence) of belief” in Sagan’s maxim, i.e. in (i).
Posted by George, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 8:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Understood, George ...

.

though that was a bit naughty of you ...

Here is something to keep your spirits up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkS-tV017rM&feature=related

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 28 November 2012 9:26:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy