…Continued

But respecting the views of those who disagree with an assertion of such monumental proportions is easy, I’d imagine, when one is on the philosophical back foot and well aware of it. To assert something that is not only unverifiable by its very nature, but simultaneously responsible for so much grief throughout history, would be humbling, to say the very least.

<<Without expecting answers to questions I pose through which I can prove myself right and them wrong in situations which admit other than just yes or no answers.>>

I’m not sure what you mean here, but if you’re suggesting that I’ve applied simplistic yes/no answers to ignore a large greyscale in which the answers to my questions may lie, then please cite an example. It is uncouth to suggest such things without providing examples of what you are talking about and from my observations, is only done by people who want create an air of uncertainty where there isn’t any.

<<If God is seen as represented by the Abrahamic religions, for a human to judge as irrational or immoral his actions or the way He revealed them to us is even more absurd than for a three years old son of an e.g. a university professor to judge his father’s professional activity or the appropriateness of the way he explains these to his son.>>

Not so.

I'm aware of this line of reasoning (I used to use it myself) and it is invalid. It is a form of the Special Pleading fallacy and by excusing God from our own moral standards only introduces the additional moral dilemma of a God who rules with a, “Do as I say, not as I do”, attitude.

Using your metaphor to demonstrate the problems in your line of reasoning... Why would the father bother explaining something to his child that would not only be incomprehensible to him, but could actually be misunderstood in a way that may prove detrimental to his ability to accept anything else his father said, or respect him?

Continued…

…Continued

A god would understand how it is that they needed to communicate with us whatever it is that they wanted to communicate, and would have the wisdom to know what it is that could not be communicated.

A far more rational explanation here is that they are simply stories and myths of ancient peoples. This is yet another difference between theism and atheism; atheism allows one to entertain such notions.

<<As to the latter, of course, the son can simply say, I don’t understand, and the benevolent father would not use coercion to make him “understand”. That is why we have also atheists.>>

Yes, but it’s not that myself and other atheists don’t understand the moral of the story; it’s that we have the good sense, and lack the credulity, to not overlook such a glaring problem just to take something from it.

<<This, of corse, is again a metaphor not an argument.>>

It may not be an argument as such, however, it is an attempt to reason and can therefore be critiqued - metaphor or not.

david f,

“The pope is the head of the Catholic Church. However, I see him as opposed to social justice. The human race like any other species cannot increase indefinitely. The resources of the planet are limited. Environmental problems cannot be solved without control of population growth. Education of women, access to contraception and abortion are all means to achieve this end. As far as I know the pope has no objection to education for women although the Catholic church is male dominated with a male clergy. The pope's position on birth control, condoms and abortion make him unfit to be a voice in achieving social justice which is incompatible with uncontrolled population growth. He also is a voice of intolerance.”

This is a good description of the inanity of the Catholic Church’s dogma which will, at some stage, be an unsupportable ruling if we are not there already. I too am waiting with baited breath for George to make an apologetic comment on this very pressing issue without obfuscation of any kind.

I would like George to answer the question of what will happen if the world follows this disastrous policy. How long will it before we are a hundred metres deep in humans everywhere?

This is the biggest blunder by far by the Catholic Church.

David

Dear david f,

Sorry again, for having brought the Pope into play. As I wrote, it was the atheist thinker Habermas, and his ideas on how a secular society should work that I thought were relevant to this thread. Nevertheless, let my say this:

I appreciate that you presented the more or less standard objections to this Pope as your personal view. They are certainly shared by many people, and partly shared by even more, including Christians. The topics you touch upon are much more complicated than I could explain - partly agreeing, partly disagreeing with you - in a few words even if I thought I was sufficiently knowledgeable which I am not. Much, though not all, can be explained by the fact that not only the Pope is old, but so is the institution he represents and leads, and much in the Church, and probably also Benedict’s thinking, “reflects the generally accepted state of affairs from a few decades ago” as I wrote before. Against some - not all - of these accusations he was defended also by the well-known Jewish attorney Dershowitz (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/in-defense-of-the-pope/).

So please excuse me if I do not take your post sentence by sentence, and explain my personal view of it.

Maybe I should not have mentioned “social justice” since different people mean different things by that. Nevertheless, as I said, Habermas sees the Pope as an authority (on whatever in his eyes) worthy of not only to dialogue with but also to coauthor a book. Another atheist who coauthored a book with Ratzinger/Benedict is the Italian philosopher Marcello Pera (c.f. http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-ebook/dp/B009SAV4W6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358783749&sr=8-1&keywords=Pera+Marcello).

You, like many others, don’t share Habermas' and Pero's views of the Pope. Fair enough. Also not all Christians, not even all Catholics, have the same opinion about in what sense the Pope is or is not an authority. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>Where the United States decides to have diplomatic representation is not decided by a democratic vote of the people. We don't know whether a majority of the US population wants it or not.<<
I agree, therefore I finished my remark with “I suppose”. I suspect the majority doesn’t care one way or the other, at least the non-Catholics, since it does not hurt anybody. I don’t know of a strong popular pressure to severe the diplomatic relations. You might be better informed.

>>The selection of a pope is an undemocratic process<<
That is obvious, and a consequence of the Church being an institution many centuries old.

>> We agree that the secular state is not a moral guide. In my opinion neither is the pope.<<
It is hard for me to envisage how the state could be a moral guide for anybody in the same sense as the Pope is, or should be, for Catholics. The Pope is a moral quide neither for you nor for Habermas or Pero, although you obviously have different opinions about him.

The Pope is entitled to his recommendations on how the state or society should be run like anybody else. They are not binding for everybody and certainly he has no (“this worldly”) coercive powers to force it on anybody, not even Catholics.

George,

I find this generalised statement a bit more than a cop out.

“The Pope is entitled to his recommendations on how the state or society should be run like anybody else. They are not binding for everybody and certainly he has no (“this worldly”) coercive powers to force it on anybody, not even Catholics.”

You know doubt know of the quote attributed to Stan Lee that, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Pope has great power over millions of people in Africa, South America, the Philippines, and parts of Asia. His words are ‘gospel’ in many parts of those countries and the suffering is immense because of them.

It’s true that Western democracies are less likely to follow his dictates but ever there his abysmal take on many social issues is negatively influential. He is not entitled to his recommendations, such a nice word when the people to whom I refer see them as commands and not recommendations.

The Pope has great power but the responsibility part doesn't exist for the temporal world. His fantasy world and reality are clashing and are not reconcilable. I wouldn't class him as just an eccentric ‘old man’; he is a definable menace to people and planet. It would be pointless in having to explain that.

David