In an honest and open effort to increase dwindling numbers in the confessional, the Vatican has released a new set of modern sins titled “The Seven Mortal Sins” to roundly complement and update the “Seven Deadly Sins” of old.
The new list consists of the following:
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature
This is a serious press release by the Vatican, read by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a training seminar for priests in Rome. Now, as noble as the general subject matter of the list might be, I think the pope and his lot have finally lost the plot.
Remember, engaging in any of these new sins means eternal damnation into the fires of hell upon death — should the Catholics in fact turn out to be right, God help us all! As unpleasant as that sounds and at the risk of probably insulting a good number of you, I would like to state what an absolute pile of blatant, unashamed, insulting, inane, festering rubbish this list is. In fact, if the Catholic Church were looking for a singly brilliant way to inform people of what man-made, ludicrous fear-mongering it peddles, this would probably be it.
The first thing that strikes me as obviously dubious is that the Vatican has freely admitted that the new list was decided right here on Earth by a stuffy collection of repressed, aged, single men in a conference hall. It is worth remembering that these are the same men who normally have their hands full trying to convince the world that they are not molesting children and protecting the seemingly endless stream of balding, churchly child molesters across the globe. In their infinite wisdom, they have now decided to tell the millions of Catholics around the world exactly what God will or will not do to them after death based on a new and modernised list that they have compiled all on their own. Did He delegate the task to them because He was busy? The arrogance displayed in publicly presuming to know what God thinks and how He will judge you, should He, She or It even exist at all, is staggering.
Secondly, our men of the cloth also openly admit their frankly commercial reason for producing the list. Attendance is down 60% in Italy; after 1 500 years people have finally seen through the lies and are happily trying to live guilt-free lives. The only way to bring them back in line is to invent a few new, completely vague and scary sins. In the past, at least we were led to believe that the process of compiling such lists involved a little communing with God atop a mountain by a prophet, normally sent down for that express purpose. Now it seems the methods form part of a strategic marketing plan. In the absence of any real demand, demand must be brought forth. The church can then supply the heavenly product to meet the new and vigorous spiritual demand. Good for turnover, good for profit, market share regained, bonuses for the marketing department and guaranteed wings upon death.
Now luckily I am no guilt-ridden Catholic, but if I were, I would be literally wringing my hands in terror. This list of mortal sins is leagues more vague than the original and leaves way more questions asked than answered.
For example, how would I know if I am committing the sin of environmental pollution? Am I guilty by buying foods with plastic wrappers or perhaps by having a braai on the weekend and sending smoke upward? Driving a car or taking a flight pollutes the air and should land me in very hot, sulphurous water. No doubt tossing out the garbage and not recycling is a one-way ticket to eternal damnation. Is modern life not stressful enough for these people?
Genetic manipulation? Are the good doctors in their little coats going to fry at an unholy temperature for trying to feed the world with genetic crops or finding a cure for Parkinson’s? “Yes,” according to the Vatican. God does not want you to play God. That’s his gig and He is actually pretty annoyed that you have figured it out this far and he will burn you for meddling. That’s right, your loving Father in heaven is going to burn you and listen to your screams and say it was your fault for not listening when the Vatican nailed its latest list to the church door. Right. Pity about those who have been meddling and died before the list was pinned up. Sorry guys, bad timing. And since the same group had a conference to cancel Limbo, you really are in deep trouble.
What about excessive wealth? At what point does my accumulation of wealth turn from being acceptable to damnable? Presumably the Vatican’s all-new audit department will troop into each Catholic’s home once a year with an environmentally friendly calculator and portable confessional. After assessing said Catholic’s affairs, they will pronounce him safe or about to be burnt to a crisp. Do developed countries get a bigger allowance for higher living standards? Is tax heavenly deductible? Ridiculous? You bet!
It also gets tricky with wealthy philanthropy. What about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? They have excessive wealth no matter what definition you apply, yet are doing way more than the Catholic Church to benefit the poor and needy. They are trying to stop Aids while the church is inadvertently spreading it. In fact, while we are on the topic of excessive wealth, the Catholic Church itself is by all estimates an excessively wealthy organisation. Who burns now? The priestly employees of said church? The paying clients who keep it going? Perhaps even the owner/founder himself? That’s right; God may have to burn Himself for holding 100% interest in an excessively wealthy enterprise. It is His church, after all, and He calls the shots, doesn’t He? The works of art alone are priceless. The bulletproof pope-mobile must have cost millions. The church owns more real estate than Donald Trump could hope to accumulate in his entire lifetime. Did these guys even think this through or are they that confident that people will soak it up because of whom they claim to represent?
And so we move along to inflicting poverty. Right, who gets it here? Again, the Catholic Church gets my vote for its stance against birth control, leading to huge families that are just too large for poor people to look after, and for making the poor pay 10% to the church when they can ill afford to do so. Sure, we may catch a few nasty, corrupt politicians in the net and perhaps a few greedy executives of major corporations. Well, maybe they all deserve to bake with each other, come to think of it.
Drug trafficking and consumption is one of my firm favourites. What will God classify as a drug on our big day and did these wine-toting old fellows from Italy draw up a banned-substance appendix so we can make sure we are safe? If alcohol makes the cut, hell is going to be full to the brim with every Irish Catholic I have ever met and most of the rest of us too.
Marijuana? Well, He made the damn stuff, according to the creationist Catholics, and since there were no labels on the plants stating what to do with what, how the hell are we supposed to know what is a drug and what is not? Panado, Disprin, Grandpa? Can you frizzle now for popping a pain pill or flying to London with a bottle of good South African Amarula for your buddy?
Morally debatable experiments are up next. Hallelujah for the vaguest sin of the whole motley lot! Notably the phrasing includes the word “debatable”. Now if it is debatable, then it can’t be a clear case of wrong, otherwise it should have read “morally unjustifiable experiments” or perhaps “morally reprehensible experiments”.
Not so?
The experiment that you and the lovely lady are about to perform only needs to be morally debatable, and only a prostrate admission of guilt by both of you might buy you salvation. I am guessing that if you have escaped so far, this one will get you. Got a tattoo? Oops. Masturbate as a teenager? Sorry, but you are in for a sweaty afterlife because we all know that masturbation is surely morally debatable experimentation in the eyes of the church. Going to be tough to break this one to your struggling, messed-up, pubescent, spotty teenage kid. You touch it and fire will burn it off!
So if, by some reason, you are still confident that you are off to heaven to learn the harp and float about in a state of timeless peace, serenity and profound boredom, let’s see if you might be nabbed at the gates by “violation of fundamental rights of human nature”. The wording of this one has me totally stumped. I can only assume we are encountering a Babel-esque glitch after translation from the Italian version. Human nature is very different to human rights and includes a whole bunch of weird stuff that society tries hard to keep under control. Are they saying we have a right to go with the raw human instinct that is our nature? If so, then they have just endorsed absolute anarchy. As fun as that sounds, perhaps the learned sages need to check their wording.
If they meant “violation of fundamental human rights”, however, most white South Africans are clearly in for the high jump, as are millions of Americans. Hell must be full of Brits from the empire days and probably full of church leaders and their stake-burning henchmen from the past two millennia as well. And what Bill of Human Rights exactly are we using as a yardstick to ensure our clearly critical compliance? I must confess to being a little perplexed by this one.
So if sloth, lust and the other originals don’t get you, booze and pollution probably will. The sticky web has been spun. There is no way out. You are going to burn and scream for all eternity unless you rush off to church in your droves and repent. The Vatican’s plan is perfect. Dry-clean your suit for Sunday and dust off those Bibles.
I think not.
These prescriptive, religious men have spent their protected lives holed up studying a religion consisting chiefly of one tired book. They are, as a result, by far some of the least qualified mammals on this planet to be advocating rules pertaining to modern life and its very real challenges. It is beyond laughable and misguided. It is cruel, evil, manipulative and desperate. This list reeks of supreme arrogance and tyranny of truly biblical proportions, and is nothing more than a desperate thrust for power and control over vulnerable, indoctrinated people. If indeed there were a hell, I would look forward to meeting all of them there.
Just before you pen your indignant answers, dear Catholics and other sympathetic religious types, ask yourself if you truly, truly accept the swill you have just been dished up by these learned members of the church. If the answer is a blessed “no”, then please question the validity of all that came before it for it is simply more of the same. If the answer is “yes”, then you must truly belong to the flock and walk to a different bleat, and good luck to you.
Oh, and I am happily far beyond saving, so please don’t even try.
First, the Vatican did not propose a new set of sins called “The Seven Mortal Sins.” That’s the media’s take on it only, and your diatribe shows poor homework in that you didn’t look deeper.
Second, aside from the religious implications, without accepting social responsibility we’re all screwed. You don’t need religion to have social ethics, though you seem to advocate against even that much. All the Vatican spokesman was saying was that we must realize that our personal choices have a profound impact on the whole, and it is time that we as individuals begin to demand change in our world.
Lastly, you come across as a religious bigot and since you’re into ad hominems, you probably won’t mind my saying that it’s likely a holdover from having apartheid instilled in you from the time of your infancy.
Religious hate is still hate and it’s damned ugly.
Id advise all who plan on commenting on this excuse for a thoughtleader’s article to visit the link provided by chris above, and grant,please do your research or switch off the computer you’re mis-using it
Jesus Christ. Where did this nit come from (apart from Brakpan and Benoni)? With critics like this, why would the Catholic Church need adherents? If this character didn’t exist, the Pope would have had to invent him.
Ag shame, I’m also not Catholic (God forbid), but this mountain biker truly is so misinformed that it borders on ignorance. Still, the Pope no doubt thanks God that he’s there.
Back in the 1950’s, I had to memorize the traditional “seven deadly sins” in catechism class: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, envy, gluttony, sloth. In many ways, the modern-day list is simply a logical application of the old principles. Note that both lists primarily have to do with doing harm to other people and to our world - not with violations of arbitrary rules. For those of us who believe, our faith is part of our real life in a real world - not some sort of fairy tale that exists only in the imagination.
If our world is to survive and improve, human society must conquer the evils on this list, whether we are religious or not. It’s a shame that Mr. Walliser sees fit to condemn an honest attempt to right what’s wrong with this world.
@Chris, Dan, Mocca et al - just to correct you guys, I do not profess to be a journalist. I never have. I only analyse journalism and give you my perspective. That’s all. Take it or leave it.
The journalism aspect here that you are questioning was performed by the BBC no less, just follow the link. Any complaints about the validity of its content you can refer directly to them but since they bothered to go directly to Rome and interview people in the Vatican, you can assume it is basically correct if slightly tongue in cheek.
You can also assume that after spilling this kind of thing, the Vatican is going to have their hands full trying to repair their image. Hence you are likely to see a number of rebuttals from various quarters including websites like the one listed above. Hell, I would try to limit this damage if I were them.
In addition, should the whole thing turn out to be a hoax, which it is not, the fact remains that the Catholic Church is losing popularity at the confessional and has policies that should make any thinking person wince in disgust.
@ Cool Down, Oom Frikkie and Tant Annie - Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that you should go back and read my second last paragraph. If you are going to label somebody as misinformed, thats cool, but perhaps you need to be more specific otherwise people might think you have nothing of any real substance to add to the debate
@ Joe - if the church were proposing a simple list that we should try to adhere to in order to make life better for all and thats where it ended, I could concede it to be fairly harmless and ignore it completely. It would, however, baffle me why we would need them to create these lists at all since anyone could put a list of moral values together. The Greek philosophers did it thousands of years before the church ever did proving conclusively that the Bible is not the root of human morals and never has been.
They are not advocating harmless lists, however, they are threatening us with eternal damnation if we do not adhere to these lists which are vague and ambiguous to say the least. They are asking nicely for compliance…with a loaded gun to your head.
Biiig difference!
It is called manipulative and egomaniacal, amongst others, when you are using fear to try and enforce a damning list that you made up all by yourself.
Dear Grant,
This - arising from your Thought Leader (sic.) offering - is no “debate.” One might as well “debate” the intricacies of the Benoni sewerage system with Miss Ohio.
Notwithstanding the fact that this list is at best silly, I have to tell you that you have missed the point entirely. You’re just being facetitious, and not even intelligently so. I am an ex-Catholic who now has no truck with their sexist, guilt-laden nonsense. But if you shrug off your overblown mantle of riteous indignation for a moment and take some time to actually look at the things the list describes and not just from wence the list emanates, you should see that it is not totally misguided to ask people to pollute the earth less, to refrain from destroying other people’s lives by encouraging substance abuse or to stop constantly enriching themselves at the expense of others.
A sin, according to the Catholic definition (which you obviously wouldn’t know and didn’t bother to find out) is not something for which you burn in hell (hell is a long outdated concept my friend), but something that damages your relationship with God, whomever you believe Her/Him/It to be. In that regard, the things described in this list could well be considered to be valid impediments to a spiritually fulfilled life.
So whilst I don’t agree with the possible reasons for putting out a list like this, I don’t have a problem with the list itself.
Listen to the message, instead of trying so hard to shoot the messenger.
Wonderful irreverent and satirical piece Grant. Predictably the religious nutters crawl out the woodwork to try and deflect and defend anything that exposes their medieval superstition.
Ha ha ha, first-class article this. And I just love all the self-righteous comments from people falling over themselves to be the first to prove themselves worthy of the Pearly Gates. People: forget your emotions, read the words that are written. But that’s contrary to the spirit of religion, isn’t it…
I thought it to be an interesting read Grant, regardless of the commentaries. Religion should not be a license to ignorance. Question everything !!!. A lot of harm (Apartheid, genocide etc ) has been committed in the name of religion. People allow your minds to breathe a little and get a fresh perspective and be heard. I suggest a read from Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” just to get a perspective.
lol…Grant tread with prudence boet! these pious skeletons crawling out can be really nutts - remember that thing called fundamentalism - if i were you, i’d know better not to take this issue up with them, any further.
Please go to www.cwnews.com or www.americanpapist.com for the REAL story about sin.Are you ingnoring the facts or are you knocking the Catholic Church because deep down you know its the one and only?Afterall JESUS himself started it 2000 years ago not someone who woke up one day and said “I think its a good day to start a church”Catholics still follow HIS teachings and I think thats what bothers people.Okay,so some catholics have given the Church a bad name but remember they are human.What happened to forgiving?The Doctrine of the Church has remained steadfast and its in the safe hands of our present Pope.Jesus asked Saint Peter,the first Pope to look after his Church on earth.The present Pope is number 266
A Proud Catholic
Grant, you said,”desperate thrust for power and control over vulnerable, indoctrinated people” No, I don’t think so, just an exhortation for people to behave ethically. That’s what politicians do, also-well, some of them, anyway. Also what some philosophers do, and some journalists too, I daresay. You may not believe in God, or the concept of “sin” but I am sure you have some idea of the difference between what is “good” and what is “evil”, in other words, you have a conscience informed by your reason. When the church writes church doctrine it seeks to inform that human conscience, that is all. I do believe in God, I do so freely and do not consider myself “indoctrinated” or “vulnerable”, as you suggest. The catholic church is losing popularity,that is very true, but it is not primarily because of its teaching and doctrine, a lot of which makes good sense. Rather it is because it fails in meeting the needs of the people,and uses outdated modes of church practise. I could elaborate, but this would just bore you, neh?
Excellent. Well put. Religious fans should be less naive when creating lists for whatever reason. Looking at the practical side of life will win more votes/members. It will be in their best interest to target a different and more sound approach other than threatening en mass. Religion has created such a farce that it cannot be believed/tolerated anymore.
Christine - 2nd last paragraph please. I hardly think a Catholic website is the correct starting point for an objective opinion but thats just me.
Cate - some Catholic doctrine is good by default,: no stealing, killing etc. I would hardly attribute it to them though. Mankind knew this long before the Catholic Church existed. What is the difference between those old philosophers and the church? The Church maintains that if you do not adhere to their principles, you burn in hell. They have no proof of this, only hearsay from a book, cobbled together by a Roman eager to hold power over his empire, 400 years after a supposed prophet lived with many of the juicy bits left out so as to make it clear for the rabble. I call that blind fear-mongering from a base of clay feet to put into biblical terms. You may choose to call it as you wish.
Wonderfully irreverent! And what a thrill to hear the porcine shrieks of those predictable, subservient, unquestioning fundamentalists. There is as much proof that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden as there is for the existence of a god…….seriously. As Tshepo says - read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins as well as his earlier works. Take responsibility for your own actions. “He works in mysterious ways” - yes, well…looking around the world that’s what scares the hell out of me!
This article is an example of the kind of fearless writing reasonable people should expect from journalists when it comes to reporting on matters of religion. Sadly, because of the hold the religious and their archaic beliefs have on our society, we hardly ever see it. Any independant-minded person, free of the kind of religious indoctrination overseen by the Church, realises that the Vatican as an institution is interested in only two things: power and influence. Fear is its tool.
I just have to respond to Christine Mallett (having nothing new to add about the fact that the list was never real). Before reading on, let me say that I used to be a Baptist, but thankfully managed to escape. Also, before anyone points it out again, I know that having any kind of religious argument with religious people is equivalent to pissing into the wind. I’m going to do it anyway because the air conditioning is on and piss is warm.
Jesus could well have woken up one day and decided it was a good day to start a church, so it’s not necessarily true to say that it didn’t happen that way. The book doesn’t say it happened that way, but that’s no argument against it. Any attempt to use that is just a case of begging the question.
Also, the Catholics, like other Christians, say they follow his teachings, but given that the Christians are unable to agree on exactly what those teachings were, no one sect necessarily actually lays claim to following his teachings. If there wasn’t any wiggle-room in interpreting the teachings then it would seem logical that all Christians would be following the same set of teachings and not be split up into so many different groups, each with their own idea of exactly what the teachings meant.
I’m curious to know why anyone, other than a rival Christian sect, would be bothered by whether or not Catholics are following the teachings of Jesus? In addition, there’s no ‘knowing’ that the Catholic church is the one and only. That’s what faith is all about, after all. Catholics remain in the Catholic church because they believe it’s the one and only. It doesn’t matter how many times anyone says they know that their particular church is the one and only, it’s really a matter of belief.
Popes over the years have changed the rules, adding here and removing there, so the doctrine of the Catholic church has most certainly not stayed steadfast over the years.
However, in the end it’s all down to what we believe since what we believe shapes how we interpret the input we get from the world around us. This is not limited to religion or lack thereof. Unless the tint the world gets through the belief filter can be at least temporarily removed there’s no point to any argument since the sides will essentially be arguing about different things rather than from a common base. As such, I’m going to have lunch.
Burn in hell,Gosh you indeed have a warped idea
of what will happen to you.The Lord will just
forget you,because He said to all unbelievers,
‘You fools tonight I’ll claim your souls and
your place will no longer be known’.
Grant, “blind fear-monering from a base of clay feet to put into biblical terms.” Undeniably there has been a lot of fear-mongering in the history of the catholic church e.g. just one example, the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno. Bruno wanted to think freely and independently. There is a tremendouus amount of ugly stuff, but to see only that, would be to deny the good that there has been also. There has been development in the thinking of the church, and progress (as hopefully with all religions). I also agree that moral principles did not start with the catholic church. Far from it, and neither does the church say so. The church does not say a person will “burn” in hell if you don’t adhere to its teachings, but it does say there is a hell, and that is something that can be, and should be, avoided. The question of whether hell lasts forever or only for a certain period of time is open-ended. Some people believe its not so much a “place”, but a state of being. Personally, I believe that when I die, I will probably, not go “straight” to heaven, but probably, straight to “purgatory”,(another outdated medieaval concept!!) This makes sense to me-where hopefully I will take responsibility for the mistakes I made, get some sense inside my head, meditate, pray, and make reparation for, probably not so much regarding my sins of comission, but most likely more for my sins of omission: when I was too lazy to do something that would have made a difference…there I go with the guilt, but the catholic “guilt trip” can be a good thing if it helps me to make better choices next time. Aaargh that was a mouthful…Anyway, peace, go well.
“The Doctrine of the Church has remained steadfast and its in the safe hands of our present Pope. Jesus asked Saint Peter,the first Pope to look after his Church on earth. The present Pope is number 266″
To all the god/tooth fairy believers above, here’s the Truth you seek: There is almost certainly no god, no-one watching over you, no-one making sure that everything works out in the end, no-one who’s going to punish you in hell or reward you in heaven. You are alone in that sense, except that you’re surrounded by 6 billion other people like you with the same emotions, dreams, imaginations, creativity, humour and sadness - these are the only beings with whom we can create a better world. So focus on them and stop the pointless rituals to imaginary friends in high places… all that does is waste valuable time and energy that is needed to deal with the problems at hand: poverty, inequality, climate change, etc.
Superstitions about witches, tokoloshes, gods and fairies are for the uneducated which is why there is such a high correlation between IQ, level of education and atheism. Religion is for dummies.
The Catholic Church remains a convenient target for the intellectually bereft and lazy. The century in which God was declared dead saw more violent deaths than the preceeing 4000 years of human history combined. If sin does not exist then why is the world in such a complete and utter mess may I ask. If you say there is no God then it leaves us even more responsible for the whole thing. The Church is made of human beings so it will make mistakes. However it has displayed remarkable resilience over its two thousand year history. The current attacks by the secularists are vicious but are unlikely to destroy the Church. I think Comarde Stalin once said “How many divisions does the Pope have?” Where is Comrade Stalin now and where is the Pope?
Great read, too little too late from the Catholic Church and insulting to boot. These dudes really have no legitimacy in a modern world. Sad really, the harm The Church causes is so much greater than the good individual nuns, priests and catholic lay people can achieve. I prefer Methodist myself, lots of singing and relevant to daily life (and they dont heap the guilt on and use terror to try and keep the masses in order).
afronooit says “If you say there is no God then it leaves us even more responsible for the whole thing” - you hit the nail on the head, dude. God is a convenient crutch for the insecure little individuals that go around murdering in his name.
As for Stalin and the Pope of his day, I suspect that either they are both doing hard time together for the multiple sins they committed or else they are both decomposing silently in the ground. You pick.
Dave,
I disagree, many intelligent and very intelligent persons do believe in God. “Religion is for dummies” you say? Nah, I could say the same for people who don’t, such as you. But I don’t think you are a dummy. Your “existential” attitude does indeed take courage. But I can say that many people who have believed in God througout the ages have shown much courage, too. Tooth fairies, however, are another matter, I would’nt risk everything for them, no. We can’t really “debate” this, in the end belief in the existence of God or not is subjective.
Grant my brother, if you’d bothered to seek my counsel before posting this, my answer would have been, “Not a great idea boet”. Too late now. You’re on your own.
Just to add fuel to the raging inferno, I have just sent this link to some of my Catholic priests and Theology lecturers.
If you drive a small vehicle does that mean you are to be commended but if you drive a gas guzler will you be off to that place down below?
If you are a nuclear biologist will you be fried for exploring genetics or are you to be commended for poor remuneration?
The churches of the world remain a convenient haven for the intellectually bereft and lazy. In the centuries since their creation many have died in war and otherwise, their cries drowned out by the excuse that religion makes it OK. Fortunately removal of god allows us actually to be responsible for our own lives and to hold others accountable for theirs. Claims of papal infallibility should give way to demand for papal responsibility. The church, like many other beliefs, by the simple expedient of appealing to fear and human desire to answer such questions as “Why are we here?”, is naturally resilient since what it preys on is resilient. Some religions go so far to lure outsiders in as to usurp parts of the outsiders’ beliefs. An example is the inclusion of originally pagan holidays, such as Yule.
—
“If sin does not exist then why is the world in such a complete and utter mess may I ask”
You may, but only if you put a question mark at the end of the sentence, so that it’s a question, not a statement
The answer to this question is another question, unfortunately:
If cows can’t fly, how come cars are sometimes yellow?
I just have to add another comment here. I’m very impressed that no one has yet tried to claim that Einstein was religious. It’s a rare religious “debate” that doesn’t include at least one person misquoting him and/or misinterpreting things he said. Well done to everyone!
People who choose to partake in this discussion generally fall into two camps.
The one camp, comprised of both atheists and theists, arrogantly assume that they have greater intelligence and wisdom, and that they have therefore been able to understand the nature of this strange reality we exist in. They are intolerant and divisive. And boring.
The other camp, comprised of both atheists and theists, is made up of more open minded and humble individuals who are able to cope with someone believing something different to them.
To those arrogant believers (of either ilk): how about a little less raw emotion and a little more rationality. You’re not going to convince or convert anyone.
@Jared. The proverbial Fence Sitter! Anyone who engages in the endless debate is just unable to rise above it.
Coping with someone believing something different to you is the easy part (You seem to imply that its some kind of an accomplishment!) Its refusing to let others force you to live according to their beliefs which leads people to intensify the debate.
Ask a Catholic if, given the chance, they would hesistate to take away a Woman’s right to choose for eg. That right needs to be defended, and religion needs to be kep at bay!
I think the list is useful and can serve as a good guideline for humans to measure there own contribution in helping their fellow man.We all in this together to make this world a better place for all.
My dear chap
In the twentieth century the greatest genocidal machines of history swung into action. The communists were anti God and the Nazis wanted to replace Christainity with some sort of paganism. How then do you say that religion has been responsible for all the suffering of the last 100 years or so. It would seem to me that human sin or frailty as you secularists would prefer to call it is the cause.
RELIGION HAS ACTUALLY CONVINCED PEOPLE THAT THERE IS AN INVISIBLE MAN - LIVING IN THE SKY - WHO WATCHES EVERYTHING YOU DO, EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. AND THE INVISIBLE MAN HAS A SPECIAL LIST OF TEN THINGS HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO DO. AND IF YOU DO ANY OF THESE TEN THINGS, HE HAS A SPECIAL PLACE, FULL OF FIRE AND SMOKE AND BURNING AND TORTURE AND ANGUISH, WHERE HE WILL SEND YOU TO LIVE AND SUFFER AND BURN AND CHOKE AND SCREAM AND CRY FOREVER AND EVER ‘TIL THE END OF TIME…..BUT HE LOVES YOU!!
george carlin
A strict atheism does place one in a bit of a dilemma. The Christian believes God made the world but having giving humanity free choice humanity chose to sin and that is why the world is less than perfect. Sin corrupted the creation. Now the atheist says this is all superstition and there is no God. Humanity is the measure of all things. We have innate goodness in us and we can make it all right without resort to any metaphysics. The problem with this is that it just simply does not ring true. Whatever institution humanity has created has been tainted. Whether it is the governor of New York engaging in prostitution or Charles Taylor’s militia engaging in cannibalism it would seem that humanity resorts time and again to the bestial. How do the atheists explain this fairly apparent observation. The Christian explanation to me is more fulfilling. Sin causes us to turn from God and separates us for God’s grace, that is why we fail. The enlightenment said out with the old in with the new we will create a new humanity a new society without God based on secular principles. Secularism has been in the ascendancy for the last four centuries and especially over the last one. There is still no evidence that humanity’s bestiality has in any way diminished in that time.
[…] to the Catholic Church’s new seven deadly sins, by Grant Walliser in the Mail & Guardian: Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo. Worth a read for further thoughts on reality, truth and […]
Well, why this article is presented under the title of “thought leader” remains a mystery: it might rather be filed under “bias leader”.
Some reasons:
Grant Walliser boasts of being “no guilt-ridden Catholic”:
Perhaps he might think for a second, that to experience guilt implies that a person has mature ethical standards and is conscious of his/her personal shortcomings in fulfilling them.
The result is productive tension, aimed at humanising society as well as the individual.
Being far away from Italy the author apparently is not familiar with that rich tradition of the “culture of the self” that has been produced by Catholicism in particular, from the Middle ages onwards, of which S. Freud is also a product, having been raised in the soundly Catholic culture of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.
Using the expression “guilt-free” and talking about “repressed, aged, single men”, Walliser probably feels himself vaguely Freudian, enlightened, sort of.
He might take the trouble to read up Freud though, that such “repression” is an essential condition of any culture, and is always bound to create uneasiness. (Freud has had his share of experiencing the “liberated” aggression (thanatos) impulse of Nazis in Austria - yes: those people were very liberated morally, in particular with regard to aggression. Their views of the Catholic clergy were about the same.
I wonder if Walliser would also call the Dalai Lama a “repressed, aged single man” ?
As to Walliser’s vaguely “pagan” leanings, if not just secular ones: he might observe that Italy’s society is going through a secularisation of values too which has brought about a climate and legislation of impunity for all sorts of anti-social crimes ( such as bribing judges, as tax evasion, as amnesties for mafiosi and their associated politicians etc.).
The decline in church attendance in Italy does not result in an increase of atheistic attitudes, in spite of professed “secular” self-identification, by and large, but in a rise of neo-paganisms, which - for all their merits - are rather feebly ethically. This orientation has been described, sociologically, as “hedonistic milieu” which goes hand in hand with a rise of neo-fascist and rightwing populist parties, which are eroding the fabric of social responsibility in other European countries too.
This shift has been the object of some research in Europe.
Now as to Walliser’s remark about the pope losing his plot. he may be informed - as I am writing here from Germany - that Pope Benedict / former professor Ratzinger is respected here as one of the leading and foremost german intellectuals. His debate with Prof. Habermas of the “Frankfurt School” has been epochal for post-modern thinking on secular society and its necessarily religious basis , on which the two academics agreed, with Habermas, representing, as may be known in SA too, the “secular left”, closely associated with the students revolt of the 1968ff. years.
This old gentleman does certainly not loose his plot. Walliser may simply not have recognised it, perhaps for lack of familiarity with the “Catholic world ( of which I am no part either, to clarify that, but one is a bit closer to the Church of Rome and itts culture here in Europe.)
So Walliser should take the trouble to “contextualise” as they say in the faculties of arts and humanities
in South African academia :
The list which Walliser finds so stuffy should be read in context:
If Walliser finds writes: ” I would like to state what an absolute pile of blatant, unashamed, insulting, inane, festering rubbish this list is. In fact, if the Catholic Church were looking for a singly brilliant way to inform people of what man-made, ludicrous fear-mongering it peddles, this would probably be it.”
If one may infer from Walliser’s disgust to the values he holds himself the result is quite obvious:
“Environmental pollution” - no problem for him, as long as he can pay his petrol bills and does not feel the effects of drought by climate change. Why feel guilt about it ?
“Genetic manipulation” - no problem either. if Monsanto’s genetically manipulated seed pollutes remaining plants and if peasants die of “round-up”: let them die, it is free-market choice. To call any criticism of genetic manipulation “sin” (or its equivalents, like “irresponsible”) is pretty uncool, isn’t it ?
Any notions of life being “sacred” - well that category is outdated: so why not sell your genes - or those of the plants of your country - to some company ? And how about deposing of excessive old age people: Life can’t be that sacred anyway.
“Accumulating excessive wealth”: the widening gap of incomes and the mounting social inequality: no problem as long as you are on the sunny side of the street. (See the Hedonist’s Handbook”, chapter one.)
“inflicting poverty” - aag, stay away with that sort of sentimentalism. There will always be poor people, and it won’t be a problem, as long as they know their place. So replace old apartheid with a new economic stratification which looks more “natural” so the poor can’t complain.
“Drug trafficking and consumption ” - ever heard of tik and crack and heroine ? Why tell the children that could be wrong, apart from being unhealthy and a bit risky. As long as drug related crime stays away from your door and social decay of broken families and violence remains in the townships, why bother ? Certainly no sin to have a bit of fun if life is so bleak. And doesn’t the drug business create a second economy and generate a bit of wealth? So why call that “sin” ? It is so “repressive”.
And as to “morals” as a category of judgement for instance on experiments ? Why not stick to good old Nietzsche’s idea that the strongest life should be a purpose to itself ?
So Wallister’s rantings about old “lies” and about happy new “guilt-free lives” are not out of beat with the “secular right” of the hedonistic milieus of Europe (some neopagan strains included): Responsibility, after all is such an uncool and repressive concept.
There are a lot of newly liberated societies - like in Eastern Europe” or in parts of Africa, which show that life is perfectly possibly without such repressive, stuffy ideas - as long as there is someone else to pay the bills - usually the majority.
With no ultimate responsibility, you just don’t have to be trapped by superstitious ideas like “conscience”.
Just interesting to read that sort of stuff in a news paper that creates the impression of being some “left” or “enlightened” - but that is maybe just for the showcase. So get on with the old agendas of minding about nothing but personal gain and privilege.
Ullrich Relebogile Kleinhempel on March 14th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Many years ago while sharing a few beers with a Jesuit Priest, I asked him “Father what is religion?”. At first he looked at me as if I was some strange form of cockroach then burst out laughing and replied “My son religion is mans explanation fro something he knows nothing about” Perhaps the wisest reply I have ever had.
Right you are! You may find that prefigured in the story of the “burning bush”, somewhere in book Exodus.
Take that bush as symbolising a person passionate about what really “matters” - in the sense of something coherent, meaningful, responsible that should “materialise” - and by its “presence”, which that person feels, and burns with, without being burnt.
That is illuminination by what is finally “unknowable”, but which radiates and is perceptible intuitively - a point on which much of philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle onwards up to Derrida agree with religions
There is no way of evading that point of unknowing, unless we could declare ourselves to be demi-gods, which is a widespread secular superstition.
The laughter and cynicism of that Jesuite priest was probably a cover-up to hide the pain about that unknowability.
But isn’t that the point where the real mystique starts ?
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Whoever said that Atheism is the cause of much human suffering, usually citing Stalin and Hitler and their opposition to religion, must understand that people do not kill in the name of Atheism. They are Atheists who happened to kill for other, usually political reasons.
Whilst religion, on the other hand, may occasionally prevent some people from killing, the truth is that its history is forever tainted by those who have killed to spread and uphold its doctrines. Justified killing in their eyes at the time, given their duty to defend their Gods, but killing nonetheless.
Two Quotes on religion:
‘Faith is something people are willing to die for; doctrine is something people are willing to kill for.’
- AC GRayling, Against All Gods.
‘There will always be good people who do good things, and bad people who do bad things. Religion, however, is the only thing that makes good people do bad things.
- Can’t remember who said this.
In saying that we need God to live a moral life, we admit that the only reason we don’t murder or steal, etc. is because we happen to believe in a God who forbids it.
“My son religion is mans explanation fro something he knows nothing about” - I would agree with that
… and also add: The church/religion by my own
vague way of looking at things was created to
serve “good” (but I think it was wrong to put a fictitious fellow such as God to be CEO)… I don’t believe in God but I do know that without religion the world would have been in a much messier situation, man would still be behaving like animals. So I have to thank all these repressed, aged, single men for keeping it going. I for one would never argue with a christian.
afronooit et al - 20th century genocides were the biggest because of modern technology and mobilisation. The bible is full of genocide endorsed by God so I hardly think you argue this point from the moral high ground.
Hitler was born a Roman Catholic, attended Catholic schools and never renounced this religion publicly. Privately he is assumed to have dabbled with many other forms of religion and used religious icons in his speeches and Nazi branding (the SS had belts stamped with “Got mit uns”). His hatred of Jews is by his own admission partly because of their role in killing Jesus. Mad, deluded, violent, Christian, Pagan, genocidal and evil…but no Atheist.
In addition the Vatican jumped into bed officially with Hitler’s big chum Mussolini in order to gain the sole rights to Italian souls. They signed the Lateran Pact of 1929 to make it official. Mussolini supported them and the Catholic Church in return implored their flock to vote for him while voting was still an option. They also openly supported facists in Spain, Portugal and Croatia. Not exactly a squeaky clean moral record which is why they have been apologising for the last 50 years!
Stalin was raised as an Orthodox Christian and went to school in a seminary. He later did renounce Christianity and declared himself and Atheist, the official party position. He then made a bit of an embarrassing turn around when the Germans were closing in on Moscow and all appeared lost. His true colours appear to have came out and he gathered his family and close staff into one of the Orthodox Churches inside the Kremlin walls and prayed and prayed and prayed. It seemed to work because the Germans never did take Moscow! Heavenly support perhaps? Or just bad weather? Read it how you will.
The point is that the inner religious thoughts and convictions of any person can never be known with any certainty. All we have are clues. Just as there are perhaps evil Atheists out there, there are plenty of evil Christians, Muslims and Jews. Hitler and Stalin prove nothing; if anything they point rather embarrassingly back to the Christianity that indoctrinated and formed them in their early years…
Jean,
that is a sad perception of faith and somewhat cartoon-like, which is not held by too many people.
Just look around: many good people will relate their goodness to their faith in God as the supreme good and source of everything good, beautiful and so on.
Conversely even pious criminals - yes, there are also robbers and murderers among the faithful, will know that it is wrong what they do and feel some remorse about it, if not enough though.
The Christian tradition about the saints is full of repentant robbers, from the bible onwards.
Now, as to your assertions about the killings of Nazis and Communists, and by some Western Cold War brutes too. They did not kill for interest, but for a higher purpose. Please go check the facts first, about Mao Tse Tung’s convictions or Hitler’s, before mking such claims. They killed in the name of secular faiths.
An addition to above: if anyone is interested in the mystical interpretation of the “burning bush” go read Sergei Bulgakov, that early 20th century professor of economy, philosopher and lay theologian, e.g. his book “Sophia”.
For recent shifts towards neopaganisms and new Age spirituality the excellent book by Wouter J Hanegraaf: New Age religion and Western Culture - Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. New York 1998 (State Univeristy of New York Press)
Finally: recent statistics - as displayed on German national TV news - show that the percentage of atheists in the middle age population, above 35 yrs. is some 15% higher than in the age group of 19 - 35 years.
This is a significant recent development, which does however not benefit the churches very much since much of it is a free-floating spiritual world view, which is becoming the intellectual norm in much of German and American society.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Ullrich - Yes, I would call the Dalai Lama a repressed, aged, single man; a victim of his religious system. I would, however, cut him and the Tibetans slightly more slack than I cut the Catholic fellows because Tibetan religious repression seems to result in fewer little boys being fiddled with and the Tibetans never signed pacts with fascists or burnt people as witches.
Your primary premise in your long argument is that I am against the sentiments on the list and hence am amoral. I am not and I quote from my article:
“Now, as noble as the general subject matter of the list might be,”
Its the catch of being dictated to by a group of deluded archaic-thinking people who have the audacity to declare that we will go to hell if we sin by transgressing these things on the list and do not repent, that I object most strongly to. List = good, going to hell because of good list that church made up = bad fear mongering. Big difference!
As for the character and intellectual achievements of the Pope, I can safely say that while he may well be a smart man, his position in his organisation and thus his doctrine and views disqualify him from any serious scientific debate. Science requires repeatable, quantifiable explanations, not the convenient write-off of all we do not understand to a heavenly power. If we had believed the Catholic Church, we would be living on a flat earth at the centre of the universe and would not be flying anywhere. In every generation, the church has stood against progress and still does so today. For them, progress is only possible when you are involved in a guilt-enforced slavery to something which no man has ever been able to prove. Thank goodness courageous people have stood up to them over the centuries and literally dragged us, sometimes at the loss of their own lives to the church, into our modern age.
And if you think things are going wrong in our modern world, just pop yourself back in time to an era when the church ruled supreme. Wasn’t exactly the Garden of Eden with serene, fulfilled, healthy, happy people frolicking in meadows. It was called the Dark Ages for good reason.
Oh, I am not here to present a balanced view, I am here to take a side and to try and argue it logically and coherently. You just don’t agree with the side I have taken. It moved you to comment. You have your bias as I have mine. Thats fine by me but to try and discredit an article simply on the basis of bias in this instance is frankly silly
What irks me is the attitude that truth only begins where things are “repeatable, quantifiable”.
That is just an insufficient concept of truth, and you might as well discard most of the philosophical tradition of the West and of the diverse “Easts” on that basis.
This “experimental” approach presupposes that one could manipulate all things as in an experiment, which is quite impossible.
It is the insight of structuralism that the logicity of reasoning and the correlation between words and things do not reveal anything about the “truth” of statements or the patterns of thought. This is why philosophies, from Descartes onwards until our days (R. Spaemann or J. L. Marion for instance) resort to the notion of a “divine guarantee” of reasoning , somewhat at variance with structuralists like Deleuze, who, a professed atheist, placed “desire” as the core value for systems of thoughts instead of “truth”.
The issue of how to find criteria of truth beyond what is accessible to experiment is a complex matter, and should be acknowledged.
there is likewise no simple escape from a “symbolic order”, for what is presented as “sound reason”, “natural insight” or similiar criteria in secular thought, is mostly a product of religious traditions, which have been thinly veiled as endowments of Mother Nature in Enmlightenment, are heavily shaped by religious thought. A point to be acknowledged.
Now as to your evaluation: You unfortunately did not stick to treating this list of “sins” as (quote): “Now, as noble as the general subject matter of the list might be,” but called it a few nasty things which I don’t like to repeat.
As to the Roman Catholic Church, we may remember that it was this structured body which transmitted the spiritual, administrative, philosophical and ethical heritage of both Pagan and Christian antiquity to the wild tribes of the north.
It is well agreed among historians that the “culturisation” of modern man took place chiefly in the Middle Ages, by scholasticism and by the mystical movements of western and eastern monasticism.
They created modern man and Europe as it is now - South Africa too, for the early colonial discoveries, quests and conquests also had symbolic, even religious overtones, besides the quest for profit.
As to this point a note aside: It appears to be a dogma for many people that a fulfilled life necessarily implies sexual activity - which is why the reformation churches abolished asceticism. We are heirs of that attitude.
Like that however one will never understand why Zen Buddhists, Taoist monks, Yogins and Christian ascetics too, wrote about the liberation” they could experience by no other way than asceticism in respect to material wealth, sex, meat, narcotics, power and a few other delies.
What the Hindus called “moksha”, the Zen Buddhists “satori”, is apparently only to be had at that price. Who are we to argue against their experience of so many lives dedicated to that purpose ?
We can’t be as bigoted to call that plain delusion.
One may remember Freud’s idea of “sublimation” too, which seems to be part of that ascetic path, as well as of much of dedicated work too, to refer to protestant culture’s “work ethics”.
Now the major cultures, those of India, of Tibet, of Japan, Korea, Russia, Greece, from late Pagan antiquity onwards,and of the West are based on those religions and spiritualities which have asceticism and “transcendence” at their cores.
These are powerful, radiant cultures.
Whether it suits our personal tastes or not - myself not being too much of an ascetic - we ought to acknowledge that.
Then back to Catholicism. It has been noted that the burning of witches has been a process of the early modern age, with its peak during early enlightenment. This is no mediaeval affair.
As to the bloodbaths of the Middle Ages, e.g. against the Catharians, that was frequently a powerplay, driven by the interested worldly powers, like the king of France or later, in inquisition, by the royalty of Spain.
We have seen the purges by secular faiths like communists and fascists alike, with their heinous results.
The interplay between the civil powers and the powers of “the symbolic order” (churches, politbureaus, philosophers etc.)isn’t that simple to allow for such unilateral attroibutions or for the idea that there could be any society without a symbolic order and its institutions of teaching and surveilling it.
Which means that we can hardly step out of our respective symbolic order without entering into another. That also holds for the process of secularisation which rules much of the late 19th and 20th century. The faith systems which partly replaced the dominant Christian order provide ample material for investigation as to their interaction with the secualr powers.
As to the symbolic order of liberalism, we are currently confronted with its effects by destructive free-market and globalisation processes, which are not only a material but also an ideological reality.
So remember that the politician who foremostly and decisively brought about the abolishment of Slavery in the British Empire was William Wilberforce, was a devout Evangelical, who struggled bitterly with liberals of his time as from Birmingham, who saw the order of private property in danger.
Now slavery has already been an issue in ancient Israel and the principle of a symbolic equality of all human beings as “being in the image and likeness of God” was a chief reason for Christianity to be suppressed by the Roman authorities for so long. It was seen as a danger to the social and symbolic order of the Roman Empire (Historian Peter Brown researched that.) It did take a while for that to become a social reality though, in spite of papal decrees against slavery in the Middle Ages and even in the colonialisation of Latin America (See B. de las Casas and Emporer Maximilian.)The equality of human beings is no teaching of nature: experience goes against it.
To assess the Roman Catholic Church properly one has to see that it is an institution which, like few others, has been able to preserve something like “historical memory”, in its body of scripture, its processes of symbolic representation, its structures of communication and mass communion, its associated bodies of learning, its traditions kept alive in ritual, spiritual practise, debates and controversies, interaction with diverse cultures and intellectual environments and so on.
There is probably no other body of living tradition which is 2000 years old, except some Oriental and Orthodox churchs and maybe some institutiuons in the Hindu and Buddhist East.
If they change something it is like moving a tanker: It has to be the ripe fruit of social debate and awareness, which is one reason why these boodies are inherently conservative and slow to move, since, what is endorsed by them may set the course for the next 100 or 200 years. But its effects are lasting.
Now to hang one’s argument up on a literal understanding of “hell” as a place of punishment: That is a fundamentalistic reading, in the way that some North American evangelical fundamentalists would. It simply does not grasp the essence of what it is about. “Hell”, like “Salvation” is also man-made, as belonging to the “created order” to which man contributes. The dogmatic idea is one of interaction in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. So if we read that symbolism appropriately, we may well accept that there is a possiblity of ending up in hell, whether by divien decree as Calvin had it, or by own human effort, an idea accessible to atheists too, as expressed by J.P. Sartre in his play “Closed Doors”, which operates with the notion of hell. Which may explain, why Sartre once stated: “We are all Catholics”,by which he probably acknowledged that the very symbolic language he was speaking was soundly Catholic.
Now the deliberate literalism and fundamentalism in reading the religious symbolism and language, which is displayed by many latter day crusaders of secularism, is just substandard (as measured against the standards of ngeneral “religios science”). There would be no need of theology and philosophy if that religious language could be taken just literally, as Biblicist fundamentalists also believe. (Note the “coincidence of opposites”.)
You may remember that R. Dawkins has been criticised time and again that his concept of God is a caricature drawn from obscure and literalistic material at random, sort of a “God”-puppet of his own making, suitable as a sparring partner or victim.
In an age where fundamentalisms abound, in Islam (at the expense of reasonable Muslim theology), in Evangelical Christianity and in secular thought too, the challenge we might face is, just not to fall for those simplistic patterns, whether one is a believer or not, and to treat matters with the respect and discernment that they deserve.
Personally I don’t mind you being an atheist. But please do treat the topics you are dealing with by the methods and standards of sophistication that are appropriate to them. You would apply that principle to other fields too.
We wouldn’t go tell our doctors either that we know better and that their medical science and art, which is frequently based on shaky epistemologies, is “mumbojumbo” to indulge in that cute expression, which, with your benign permission, I will teach to my little daughter learning English. She may love it.
So let us stay sober on matters of faiths and their historical embodiments, even at the expense of fun.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Ullrich - I could not hope to respond to each of the lengthy points you have made in my dwindling free time so I selected what I consider to be the important few:
1) On the topic of truth - I quite agree that the claim to represent the whole truth by anyone is tantamount to supreme arrogance. All we can reliably say is that certain steps have been made by science toward explaining things that were previously inexplicable and caused fear or wonder. As for the bigger picture, nobody knows why we are here or whether there is a purpose to it. Religion attempts to exploit that gap in the market but has nothing concrete upon which to base its claims. It claims to know the whole story and who is responsible for it but offers no proof. Science on the other hand claims to know a small part of the story and admits that the rest has yet to be explained. It provides proof for everything it claims and it must stand up to repeated testing. Our modern world is built on its back and we are all better off for it.
Who is more arrogant in their claims and who represents the real known “truth”? Who has been more honest and who has not mislead people for millenia?
2) You ask for respect and suggest that I “treat the topics you are dealing with by the methods and standards of sophistication that are appropriate to them”. I believe religion has received far too much respect and special privilege that has allowed it to linger and dictate for so long. That is precisely why I do not adopt hallowed tones and respectful discourse when debating on this topic. I believe that religion needs to now stand up and be counted by providing us with proof, real arguments and truly progressive thinking or back off from the almighty declarations it is making with no substantial basis. I happen to feel the same way about alternative medicine and its repeated knocking of medical science since you mentioned it. You may find my attitude flippant and disrespectful but I assure you it comes from a very serious and contemplative place.
3) “Religious Science” is an oxymoron of the crudest kind. Nothing about religion is even remotely scientific and I include all the waffling about creationism and intelligent design not to mention Scientology and Astrology. Practise all of them freely if you wish as is your right but please do not expect any of them to be taken seriously on issues of policy and progress by any thinking person.
4) I also love the term mumbo-jumbo and I am sure your little girl will love it too
Hallo Grant,
my time is rapidly dwindling too.
So just a few brief remarks:
“Religion” is not anybody’s invention: it is a primary way of perceiving one’s environment , the outer and inner worlds and their relation.
This perception of course is expressed in discursive and in symbolic forms, which change over time.
So “religion” is nobody’s property, or rather the property of all of the adherents of this or that common form it has developed over time.
It has individual and collective aspects.
These are the topics of scientific study.
Look up Gerhardus van der Leeuw or Mircea Eliade, as pioneers and masters in that field, or David Bakan for psychology of religion.
“Religious science” is not “theology”: The former is not attached to any specific religion and investigates them as cultural, social, psychological, epistemological and artistic phenomena, with all the instruments of the respective disciplines.
It is very much science (Check at Wits, if you don’t believe me.)
“Theology” is the self-explication and systematic develoment of any specific set of beliefs, developing the doctrine, reviewing it, fighting over new proposals and the like. It closely resembles philosophy in that respect.
As to the pathos of “science”, that you share: Once again, please take note that religion like philosophy or histoy of art and psychology has its distinct methods and logic.
There is no escape from “belief systems” religious or para-religious (secular), and the idea of basing them wholly on “science”- whatever that is meant to be in that context is falling short of fulfilling its requirements.
There are things which are not to be grasped that way and which can yet be experienced and perceived and discussed reasonably.
About the motif of “liberty”: Myself being a protestant, I share the pride of “self-determination” which I associate with the reformation and its sequels. I don’t like the authoritarian structure of the Church of Rome either.
But I have come to respect it, for it manages to form an accountable body of organising over one billion of people, of shaping their views, of responding to their beliefs and needs, of creating coherence and a sense of mutual responsibility, as no other organisation does. Maybe the centralism and authoritarianism of that church is the price for that coherence over space, cultures and times.
If one looks closely, one will find that, however delayed, this church does respond to developments, as the new decree on cardinal sins shows.
So these values can’t possibly be wrong, because one does not like the people who propose them.
Among us we can be sure that the formal adoption of these criteria will be far more effective in the long run in shaping attitudes and setting standards, than much of what is written by individuals in our times, even if they brought up these issues first.
For all our individualism: the price we pay is one of fragmentation and of the anonymisation of the formation of our symbolic orders, making them more vulnerable to manipulation by economic powers too.
So, I’ll have to work late today, to make up for time, but the exchange may have been worth it.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Whoever said that Atheism is the cause of much human suffering, usually citing Stalin and Hitler and their opposition to religion, must understand that people do not kill in the name of Atheism. They are Atheists who happened to kill for other, usually political reasons.
Whilst religion, on the other hand, may occasionally prevent some people from killing, the truth is that its history is forever tainted by those who have killed to spread and uphold its doctrines. Justified killing in their eyes at the time, given their duty to defend their Gods, but killing nonetheless.
The communists if I remeber correctly killed in the naem of communism. Pol Pot was a militant atheist as was Stalin. The fact that Hitler was born a Catholic does not mean he remained one. It sounds as if some of the atheist respondents here were born Catholic yet have become atheists. How must we judge them I ask. The Church is not responsible for most of the depravity that humaity has engaged in in the last 4000 years. In many ways it was the Church that sought to modify and restrain that debased streak in human beings. It was the Jesuists who insisted that the indiginous Indians of South America had souls and so managed to temper teh excesses of the colonizing Spanish. Similarly in the Spanish Civil War whatever you may say about Franco the left were hardly paragons of virtue and they were miltant atheists. George Orwell was entirely disappointed by the behaviour of the left and wrote about it in Homage to Catalonia. I do not see the point of this whole piece as I presume Mr Wallisser being a good secularist finds all the sins listed to be unacceptable. I doubt if he thinks polluting the environemt or enriching oneself at the expense of the world’s poor are good things. So why the outrage when teh Church says these things I don’t get it.
Guiltridden - At the risk of sounding like a bit of a broken record, I take issue at the fact that the church attached the label of “sin” to the list with the implication that you will burn in hell should you transgress. The main expansion on this single point, that became the meat of the article, was to try and illustrate how vague the list is and therefore how singularly lost a person could become in trying to comply.
If the church had posted a list of things they thought might be a “good idea” or ” healthy human practise” I would have had nothing to write about and probably gone to bed. They couldn’t help themselves in promoting non-compliance to the lofty level of “sin”, thereby ensnaring anyone trying to comply and get to heaven. I think that is sneaky and immoral, but its just my view at the end of the day…
Grant
When Albert Camus became an existentailist he at least loked cool brooding and Gallic. I think that made up for the fact that his whole philosophy was basically pretty depressing and a bit of a dead end. I doubt really whether religion is for dummies. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence must ask oneself eventually what it is all for. To not ponder these sort of questions implies a bit of intellectual laziness. Yet that is what you secularists would have us all do. I think pondering the spiritual is a mark of intelligence. As for scientific proof well waht is that. The philosophers of science themselves have never resolved the question of how science knows anything. Many of the heroes of the quantum revolution themselves essentailly came to teh conclusion that it was inexplicable. Does a quark actually exist is the same question as do angels exist? The empiricists sucha s Bertrnad Russel believed that you could only know something if you could experience it. For example you can know if it is raining outside by going outside. However they ran into major problems explaining away things they could never experience such as quantum mechanics and even evolution. SO it seems as if there is a role for metaphysics in human knowledge. If there is no such thing as sin then please explain why the world is in such an awful mess. I would say it is the original seven deadly sins namley greed, lust anger, envy pride, sloth and gluttony. As you say its just your view. Dirty Harry said that opinions are like ….holes everyone’s got one so I suppose that is fair enough. Next time why don’t you pick on a real problem like the world bank or unfair global trade or genocide in Darfur, none of which are caused by or orchestrated by teh Catholic Church
I can see how the idea of a supreme authority wielding a big stick can be annoying.
So how about “karma” ? It is impersonal and produces the same results, without anyone being responsible except oneself.
Maybe punishment is more extended through ups and downs.
Roman Catholics have apparently also felt uneasy about final damnation. So they introduced the idea of a stage and place of post-mortem purification: purgatory. It is usually sufficient to get you out of hell for even the severest crimes.
This innovation is in line with Catholicicsms general opinion that salvation is for a good part also the result of man’s own effort, nit just by grace.
The stern reformation theologians had no sense for this sort of leniency, and, seeing that no direct evidence for such purification was to be found in Holy Scripture, they abolished the idea altogether and required people to confide wholly in Christ.
The result is, that Protestants generally do not believe in hell any more, with a few notorious exceptions.
Perhaps it would do them better if they did not discard that belief altogether, so as to remind them that their actions could, in the end, have some direct effects.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 15th, 2008 at 1:29 am
In what must be amongst the most superstitious and religious countries in the world it is time that South Africans have some debate over religious issues.
One of the reasons for the great proliferation of religion is this overriding respect afforded to it and sensitivity to causing offense that leads people to believe that it is not politically correct to be critical of religion. Of course the other reason is that religion makes great business and there are a lot of vested interests by churches that are ready to fleece their flock who are generally the less educated and more vulnerable segment of the population.
What a wonderful mechanism for perpetuating a dogma, to make it impervious to criticism or scrutiny. Much the same mechanism that totalitarian regimes used, those same regimes that the religious like to point fingers at as examples of the evils of atheism.
It amazed me that while there are those blacks that are critical of and reject some influences from the West as Eurocentric, many have adopted a religion that was brought to South Africa by colonialists and played an important part in their persecution, exploitation and subjugation.
Never mind whether religion is responsible for all the wars and misery attributed to it or conversely whether it has been a force for good. The truth is, it is belief system based on superstition and as such it is a travesty that it is foisted on society (Especially children and those who haven’t developed their critical faculties) perpetuating ignorance and fear. It’s also a travesty that the state colludes in this by giving it an inordinate amount of time to religion on our national airwaves.
One can’t blame Grant for being cynical about the Catholic Churches deadly sins. The Catholic Church has dwindling support and credibility and is jumping on the bandwagon to try and stay relevant in a changing society, much as they have done through the ages when they realized that they couldn’t suppress scientific progress that challenged their dogma.
What a lot of fatuous claptrap written by Ullrich, this is a fine example of intellectual dishonesty by an educated believer who tries to rationalize his religiosity and make sense of his cognitive dissonance.
I find this rather amusing from Ullrich “ But please do treat the topics you are dealing with by the methods and standards of sophistication that are appropriate to them” I would like Ullrich to answer what methods and standards are appropriate for religion and does he think billions of adherents follow their religion in a sophisticated manner?
Primative man will “worship” any thing he does not understand, this is the basis of all religion. He will adopt behaviour that is to his advantage and reject that which causes him harm, this is the very basis of good and evil. Religion raises its ugly head when a member of a group tries to codify his own perseption of that good and evil to suite his own ends and then enforces his ideas on the more guilable members of the group usually by applying threat of punishment to the deviants. Is this not what all religion is about? With very few exceptions has anyone ever met a religious leader who is poor? Do any of these leaders (whatever collective name we wish to give them)ever do an honest days work or do they live on the handouts of their subjugated flocks?
Louis
Never mind whether religion is responsible for all the wars and misery attributed to it or conversely whether it has been a force for good. The truth is, it is belief system based on superstition and as such it is a travesty that it is foisted on society (Especially children and those who haven’t developed their critical faculties) perpetuating ignorance and fear. It’s also a travesty that the state colludes in this by giving it an inordinate amount of time to religion on our national airwaves.
If atheists are really atheists why are they so tirelessly militant about it all. You don’t belive in God and when you die that is it off you go into the big nada. Why are you so keen to spread your bad news. I really think it is because you do not want to think about metaphysics. In fact it is atheism that is intellectually lazy and barren. Why bother thinking about what it all means. That is too difficult just accept that we are all just conicidences of genetics.
As for teh comparison of science to religion I would like to point out that religion and in particular Catholicism was a prerequisite for the development of science. If you accept that there is a benevolent force that created the universe then you belive that the universe is essentially understandable and logical. If you feel that it is all capricious then there is no logic and no hope. The scientists who emereged thanks to teh Church preserving culture and learning during the Darl AGes were motivated by a belief that ultimately one could understand the universe because it reflected the mind of a benevolent and logical God.
As has been pointed out where is your proof for the existence of Quarks or the Big Bang. These topics vegre on metaphysics. The secularists cannot provide a solution to the world’s mess without God or a call to redemption. Far easier to play the man not the ball. Most of the anti-religious post here have been strong on emotive langauge and a bit weak on substance.
Hate the Catholic Church all you will. You are welcome to your prejudices. However, if you want to be taken seriously in debate, you need to be able to accurately state your opponent’s position, otherwise you are like Don Quixote, jousting with windmills.
The Catholic Church always sharply differentiated between that which is sinful on the one hand, and the culpability of the individual sinner on the other. It has insisted on the existence of hell, but never insisted that any particular individual is in hell. Even the conservative Pope John Paul II says in his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”: “The silence of the Church [about whether anyone is actually in hell] is the only appropriate position for Christian faith.” The Catholic position is that we do not know whether Hitler or Judas or anyone else /is/ in hell - that is God’s business. for all we know, Hell may even be empty - a theoretical notion! We simply do not know, and we live with that tension. We believe that God is love, and we wish to respond to God in love, and part of that response is following those prescripts of God about how we should behave towards one another as part of the human family - each of whom is equally loved by God.
Most of the rest of the attacks on the Church made above are just so much drivel.
For example, this last remark about church leaders “living on the handouts of their subjugated flock”. I know many many Church leaders who have given up much to serve the poor. One simply needs to visit Bishop Kevin Dowling of the Rustenburg diocese - a man who has worked his guts out for the poor, the HIV / Aids suffers, oppressed women, etc. The man is emaciated and clearly in ill-health, yet he goes on. To speak of him living on the handouts of a subjugated flock is bizarre. It seems like an allegation borne out of blind hatred and prejudice.
Similarly, these constant allegations that the Church is in decline, are simply incorrect. They betray a Eurocentric perception and prejudice. In actual fact, numbers of Catholics worldwide are on the rise. Indeed, Christianity as a whole is considered to be the fastest growing religion at the moment - faster than Islam. Most of this growth is attributable to Catholicism and Southern Baptist type Christianity (fundamentalism?). Most of the growth is in Africa and Asia. Africa is now almost 50% Christian, as is South Korea. It is expected that by 2050, there will be 200 million Catholics in China - the largest grouping of Catholics in any single country. But I suppose that in the view of our detractors, such growth proves that religion/Christianity/Catholicism is for the poor and the ignorant, not for the sophisticated, educated, rich people in the North Atlantic. Well, if that’s your view, perhaps some day we could debate about the utter banality, crassness, inhumanness and superficiality of North Atlantic culture.
Religious Science” is an oxymoron of the crudest kind. Nothing about religion is even remotely scientific and I include all the waffling about creationism and intelligent design not to mention Scientology and Astrology. Practise all of them freely if you wish as is your right but please do not expect any of them to be taken seriously on issues of policy and progress by any thinking person.
Grant why don’t you read up a bit about how science came about. It was the Church that lead the struggle against magic. Alchemy and astrology were very strong competitors with modern science in its infancy. The Church was alwasy opposed to the peddlars of magic and sought rationality. St Augustine said he was faith seeking understanding. Similarly Aquinas with his belief in natural law believed that we should be able to discover God’s ;aw in nature. These thinkers opened the way for science to develop. Sciece without religion just would never have happened
avemaria - please read Christopher Hitchen’s book “The Missionary Position” before you believe everything you hear about poor old Mother Teresa. She is not all she appears to be. Her hob-knobbing with dictators, dubious financial affairs and refusal to treat the terminally ill humanely with pain killers so that they may ’suffer as god intended’ rather undermines her otherwise noble work. Never forget she was turned into an international star by an influential evangelical movie director, Malcolm Muggeridge, and she used her elevated new position to crush the rights of women around the world to free choice and to shamelessly and blindly promote Catholicism even when it diametrically opposed human rights such as in the Haitian dictatorship. Hardly the saint she is touted to be…
guiltridden, hallelujah et al - an attempt to claim that science was born of and supported by the church falls completely flat when you view the manner in which they treated its practitioners down the ages and still do today. Thankfully science won through for all of us, even though you refuse to see it.
Yuki - the fact that religion is on the up is exactly why more counter argument is necessary. Believe, by all means, but do so after reviewing all of the information at hand. God help us all if the church ever takes back the power it abused for so many hundreds of years. We will all be learning creationism, trembling in guilty sinful fear and fighting and spilling the blood of all those whose beliefs oppose our own even though none have any proof whatsoever. Sounds like a Utopian future to you no doubt?
Oh Grant you are so magnificent when you get angry. SO full or righteous moral indiganation. What a wonderful inspiration you are to all of us who don’t mountain bike. So all we have to do now is destroy organized religion and the world will be a little secular paradise. Oh I just love it when you get all strident. makes me want to go off on a crusade. Lets pull down the churches and smash the idols and make a God of Reason. Now why didn’t I think of that before
Someone accuses religious leaders of not being poor. Untrue we say: Mother Teresa is a counter-example. Ah - you respond - but there are a million other wrong things that she did.
Someone else makes the point that Catholicism is so out of touch that it is declining. Untrue, I say. The opposite is in fact occurring. Ah - you respond - all the more reason why counter-argument is necessary.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Any stick to beat the dog. If not this set of prejudices then that one.
In trashing Mother Teresa - that sly and uptight Catholic crone - you point out that she actually preferred that babies be born rather than aborted. Indeed, she even had the temerity to propagate this reactionary viewpoint. I have first-hand experience of her doing so - right here in SA in the Skilpad Saal of the Pretoria Showgrounds more than 20 years ago. I vividly remember her saying: “There is no such thing as an unwanted child. If you find any child that is unwanted - bring it to me. I want it.” How dare she manipulate the mob of unthinking Catholics like that! She knew full well that she could not take care of all unwanted children. Much better to pass a law saying that a fetus is not a human being, close your eyes tight and believe that law with all your might, and insist that it is a woman’s right to remove that awkward little piece of protoplasm up until X weeks before it suddenly becomes human.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I understand the argument for abortion. In my view, it is one of the most exquisitely difficult issues facing our contemporary world. My problem with you is that you recognise no dilemma whatsoever. To you it is obvious that Mother Teresa was wrong to be pro-life. You regard it as self-evident that the sum contribution of Catholicism has been to abuse power for many hundreds of years. You seem to imagine that there is some dark Catholic conspiracy to take power, after which we will all have to learn creationism, “trembling in guilty sinful fear and fighting and spilling the blood of all those whose beliefs oppose our own even though none have any proof whatsoever.” Your self-assurance is breath-taking. Talk of mumbo-jumbo - the Catholic Church could take a few lessons from you!
First of all, the Church has no aspiration to take political power. A casual read of of its documents from Vatican II will affirm that it fully embraces the separation of Church and State. (However, you can never trust those Catholic bastards. They say one thing in their documents, and then conspire for other things!) Secondly, after not taking an official position on evolution for many years, the Church now accepts it as the most likely theory of how life has come about (and many Catholics, myself included, enthusiastically embrace it as a manifestation of God’s way of working in the world). I have no idea what “guilty sinful fear” you are talking about. It is hardly part of my spiritual vocabulary, nor that of the fellow Christians with whom I associate (I exclude fundamentalists - Christian and others). And all that blood! I am left speechless - Mugabe is a Catholic. Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein must have had Vatican connections. Hitler had a Catholic mother (or was it father). George Bush has a Catholic sister-in-law. Whatever the case, if there is blood - there has to be a Catholic connection. After all we have this bloody ritual sacrifice of the Mass every morning.
You call for more counter-argument. I hope that it is not counter-argument at this infantile level Counter argument to what? To Catholicism? To bolster your childlike prejudices against it. It seems to me you are willing to grasp at any straw to beat it, rather than pluck up the intellectual integrity to investigate what it actually says, what it has actually been and done historically, and what it’s aspirations actually are.
I never did like that Mother Teresa. I always thought she was a media phony. Thank you Grant for having the courage to publically state what I have long suspected. I think Princess Di was a far better example of selfless love for the young people of the world to follow
And what a thrill to hear the porcine shrieks of those predictable, subservient, unquestioning fundamentalists.
What stirring rhetoric. Where did you get it?
If cows can’t fly, how come cars are sometimes yellow?
I would assume that there is no connection between cows not flying and the colour of cars. However my obtuse friend there is a direct connection between human actions and the state of the world. So we have to account for these actions. Why do you think that 9 out of 10 things humanity does turns to mud. Perhaps it is just one of those things or perhaps sin has something to do with it
afronooit - yes, we have to account for our actions. Thats why we need to take personal responsibility for them and not blame them on invisible forces of good and evil thus absolving us. That’s called a nifty, convenient cop-out
So secularandproud think Princess Di is a fine example of selfless love unlike Mother Teresa. I mean get real the woman was totally selfindulgent and a complete whining ninny. Compare that to the lifetime of selfless service that Mother Teresa gave. Grant I was starting to see your point but when you started bashing Mother Teresa then I was really apalled. I mean how many AIDS orphans have you taken in recently whilst you were out mountain biking
Superstitions about witches, tokoloshes, gods and fairies are for the uneducated which is why there is such a high correlation between IQ, level of education and atheism. Religion is for dummies.
Wow if you were anymore self satisifed you might just burst
I tried to read through the article after being directed here by a link. Unfortunately it’s simply not up to an acceptable philosophical standard. It’s just another self righteous opinion. Another bit of spam for our minds.
Please do yourself a favour Grant and educate yourself further. Attain at least a MA in Philosophy before you presume yourself ready to put your opinions forth into the public sphere. That way your well thought out opinions will at least have the potential to enrich your readers thinking.
Until you raise your intellectual standard your writings will continue to bore / frustrate those who actually want to engage in intelligent debate.
A *Thinking* Atheist on March 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
An example is the inclusion of originally pagan holidays, such as Yule.
—
Hey bro I don’t see many secularists passing up the Christmas or Easter long weekend
Roger the cabin boy on March 15th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Atheist asks that we give Grant a break. Reason: the Catholic Church is the single most evil organization on the face of the earth. Atheist just knows it. He does not need to substantiate the insult. After all, according to Dummy, Atheist must be high IQ. Why? Because he is an atheist, of course, while we dummies who follow religion are obviously self-satisfied bigots. Dummy, in turn, just knows this to be the case. He too, does not need to substantiate his claim. Why not? Because, being atheist, he is high IQ.
Around and around you go in little dogmatic circles, pleading to be left alone to insult Catholicism at will. We should not defend ourselves. We should just leave you to muck around in your little “Thoughtleader” fantasy world, throwing dirt at us as we pass by. We should turn the other cheek, I suppose.
Seems to me that *Thinking Atheist* has a point. The level of debate on this blog is puerile. Thoughtleader - my eye! What pretentious bilge!
Wow Grant you have achieved your objective of being the most popular blog on the website. Attacking religion is always a sure fire way of getting attention. To improve on this why don’t you write something about sex next. Being such a free thinking sort of chap without any guilt I am sure you will be able really raise the temperature around here with that topic
You adressed me directly with a nice mixture of compliments and chalenge on the verge of insult.
Let it be so.
A response is needed.
In particular (quote):
“What a lot of fatuous claptrap written by Ullrich, this is a fine example of intellectual dishonesty by an educated believer who tries to rationalize his religiosity and make sense of his cognitive dissonance.
I find this rather amusing from Ullrich “ But please do treat the topics you are dealing with by the methods and standards of sophistication that are appropriate to them” I would like Ullrich to answer what methods and standards are appropriate for religion and does he think billions of adherents follow their religion in a sophisticated manner?”
Right, this needs explanation:
Let us assume, that at the beginning of religion there is perception.
I know, that at this point, some people will object, that true religion is only given by personal revelation. However that may be only a difference of degrees, even if some people are unwilling to accept that religious experience cannot be held in strict boundaries.
Never mind.
There are traces of religious activity at the beginning of human culture. (Even Neanderthal man had some funerary rituals which indicate a perception of something beyond the visible.)
To me personally religious experience comprises:
1) the perception ! (not the “idea” - that is secondary) that there is a coherence and “intelligence” in the world, which exceeds the interactions that can be observed within a materialistic world view.
This is an “approach” - or leave it: a perception - which has informed the religious attitudes of natural scientists like Frijof Capra, Carl G. Jung, H.P. Duerr, M. Planck, Schroedinger and others.
(This list is just to indicate that religiosity hhas not been perceived to be “cognitively dissonant” by “thought leaders” in sciences, thus by those, who, according to the materialistic paradigm of thought, could impossibly be religious.
Interestingly they regard their spiritual perceptions to be a compliment of their scientific world view.
I should not forget to mention Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and geologist, a Jesuite priest too, who suffered quite a bit by being forbidden to speak in public by his church, because his views about the spiritual unitity of reality and about a rationality in evolution which is not mere causal but also “final” , i.e. goal oriented, purposeful, - because these, and other views of his were too dissonant with the accepted doctrine of the church in the early 20th century.
Yet de Chardin refused to leave the church, although his rank in science was undisputed.
People like R. Sheldrake owe quite a bit to him.
2) that there is some “energy” or rather that there are “energies” which are perceptible and which are of a distinctly spiritual nature.
I have felt these in some churches, which have a “spiritual radiance”, and also in people and communities, even in places.
These experiences are diverse.
I have sensed that in the Pentecostal services of a Ghanaian pastor here in Germany, a friend, with whom I do not agree in many points of theology.
I have also felt them, and quite strongly in some Russian orthodox sites of pilgrimage.
These perceptions concern the assumption ultimate intelligence and of “transcendent energies” which are yet perceptible in particular, and as having a peculiar spiritual quality.
The orthodox church has taken the concept of “spiritual energies” seriously and has introduced it into its doctrine, much to thhe annoyance of the more rationalistic Catholic and Protestant churches. (Read Vladimir Lossky, if you like. There are some Russian philosophers, in particular, of the early 20th century, who keenly sensed the impoverishment brought about by a rationalistis, materialistic world view, which arguably excludes some categories of experience (comparable to forbidding music for not being “rational”). They have focussed on the concept of spiritual energy, since it was closest to immediate experience. This of course is in some tension to a doctrina psition that there are soem thriuths about what is “beyond” which have only been revealed to particular people in a particular limited span of time - that of the Bible - and that nothing else has followed and , so,metims too that these revelations are just to be believed, but that they can’t be checked by experience. This authoritarian view actually excludes or devaluates personal and living spiritual perception and experience. It oddly posits “faith” against “reason”. Little wonder that many sound people revolt against that, sometimes with great pains of conscience. On the other side, those of secular, materialistic orientation, oddly enough, share this attitude, and unquestioningly continue to play that tune, that “faith” and “reason” are fundametnally opposed. A strange coalition there !
The perception of spiritual energies is a central element of African Traditional religion and much of it has been adopted in African Christianity. There are interesting books by John Mbiti, on African World View, in particular.
In this world view the “spiritual energies” and the “natural energies” are closely connected and they are seen to reinforce each other.
This idea has been mediated to North American culture through spiritual music to pop music. Just watch “Blues Brothers” for the link.
It has been adopted and “vibrations ” “positive vibrations” in a somewhat secular disguise in the post 68 culture. Little wonder that the “re-spiritualisation” of world view in the context of the “counter-culture” is linked to music too. (See e.g. Esalen institute in California and its radiance in USA culture. - Check on the internet.)
In South America, in Brasil a parallel development took place: here the African concept of spiritual and vital energy translates into “Axé”, which is also the name of a very vibrant popular music, which is often associated with Umbanda, the Afro-Brasilian syncretistic religion.
- and mind you, the “energies” and maybe even “spiritual beings, lest they should have any “life” of their own, are definitely perceptible, not only in the somewhat funny expression which states of trance can cause, but also internally. After a while you can feel them, even outside of ritual.
3) This brings us to the issue of “spiritual beings”: There is an intersting story in the Bible, often underestimated: That of Bileam’s donkey. In brief: that man was a diviner called to curse some people, which he should not. Yert hhe went. On the way his donkey bucked, and refused to continue. Finally, the diviner understood (his donkey told him so) that it had perceived a spiritual being blocking the path.
I talked about that with a lady who owns a riding school and she did confirm (what I had read internet too) that horses are known to have a special spiritual “sixth sense”.
So spiritual perception seems to be no privilege of human beings.
Spiritual beings have been observed by people of various religions and degrees of faith of spirituality.
There is a famous story of Shackleton on his daring voyage in an open rowing boat from Antarctica to South Georgia to fetch help for their ice-trapped crew. Shackleton an his companions had the clear perception that there was an extra “person” with them on the boat during all of their passage, who reassured them and guided them.
Such perceptions of spiritual beings are reported from all over the world by mentally quite sane people, often under specially demanding of trying circumstances, and many have preferred to keep quite about these perceptions and were reluctant to disclose them.
More “categories of experience” could be added, but this is getting long already.
Now the “science of religion” explores the sources of such experiences, their cultural expressions and their interpretations, which, of course are influenced or determind by the general epistemics/view about what “reality” is, of their cultures.
Science of religion also compares religious perceptions and convictions across cultures, in particular where no genetic, historical link exists between them, to identify the agremetns and differences, to investigate common patterns and their variations etc.
It analyses “ritual”, and theiir relations to social order, psychology, cutural symbolism, material culture, and so on.
It researches the development of religions, their rise and flourishing, also their decline and the reasons therefore.
Of course “science of religions” is linked up with a variety of other academic disciplines and aölso overlaps with them.
This is a vast field of study,which shares methods with other sciences and also develops its specific approaches as suited to the obejcts of research.
Now to the final question about my intellectual sincerity:
I am firmly convinced that there is an ultimate, inteligent and “energetic” “reality” or “person” (for lack of any more appropriate concept.)
Here I quite share the views of the great philosopher of late Platonism, of Plotinus, who synthesised the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and integrated philsophical and religious thoughts of both with a sound contribution of his own.
Fortunately Plotinus and his (pagan) successors have deeply influenced theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries onwards, and have introduced an element of mysticism or “immediate beholding” (to translate the Greek word “mystic”/”myein”)and of philosophical approach to theology, which has become effective in the great mystical movements of the Middle Ages both in the West (Meister Eckhart, the Cathedral builders of Chartres) and in Byzantium, the East, where a spiritual practise resembling Yoga and a theologcal doctrine of “divine energies” ( and of their perception) was developed, which is fruitful until today.
It is from this spiritual culture that modern man was born, when the time had been prepared by those mediaeval philosopher-theologians and mystics for a new reading of Greek philosophy and Pagan spritual traditions during Renaissance.
The result was a strong input of Paganism, which sought to related directly to antiquity by skipping the Middle Ages, and which has formed a spiritual undercurrent ever since, which is surfacing especially over the last century. Interestingly philosophers and scientists of Enlightenment often had dual religious identities, mostly with a strong admixture of antique philosophical/spiritual paganism, like with Newton, Goethe, Hegel and, curiously enough, also Nietzsche, who had not declared that “God is dead” but who wrote: “Have you not noticed that YOUR God is dead?” - which was true enough in his materialistic age.)
As to me, of course I am aware, that many doctrines, which are along often only loosely based on some immediate spiritual experience, may exceed what has been at their experiential base. Especially in the doctrines about Christ we find that certain notions have grown “by themselves” or according to external motifs. These form part of the historical heritage of the teachings of the church.
But if one accepts that any religion grows over time, sometimes according to intrinsic and culturally determined logics, one may learn to live with a degree of “cognitive dissonance”, knowing that it is inevitable whenever immediate spiritual perceptions become shared and structured in social relity, i.e. when they become historical religions. This step however is necessary for spiritual perceptions to be shared and to influence social and cultural reality.
(That this is fruitful may be seen from the observation that all major civilisations hhave a spiritual and religious core, which influences their aesthetics, theis social norms, their values, their imagery, their orientation in time (forwards or backwards) their material culture and the value they attach to it, their scientific and intellectual culture etc.
It is a host of fruitful efects and some nasty or outrightly evil ones too at times, unfortunately.
Weighed against these benefits, a degree of cognitive dissonance is bearable - provided, and that is what I am adamant about: that a link to personal and immediate spiritual experience and a back-check with that of others, as well as intellectual soundness in the process is constantly sought and maintained.
Having tried to digest the last by Ullrich I have come to the conclusion that my contention that religion is mans explanation for something he knows nothing about covers everything he said. God is an anthropomorphic construct by which man invented it/him in humanoid form to better hold in the mind the incomprihendable. Just another thought - a person is not an entity but rather a colony of billions of individual cell, each containing the entire code for that person, working in a co-operative with the others to make you. Why should God be a humanoid? Perhaps ET is the size of a microbe and flying saucers the size of a flea. I am not an Atheist but rather an agnostic, I accept that there is some order in the universe but not controlled by a man sitting on a cloud.
Louis
Why not havbe Grant over to a nice dinner where we can swig expensive red wine eat lovely organic food from Woolworths knowing that pur delightful maid will clean it all up the next morning. Our topic of conversation can be What a total phony Mother Teresa of Calcutta is
I have some THEOLOGY about the issue you raised
and A STORY about some fundamentalist secularists later on.
1) THEOLOGY:
On the “personal” image of the supreme reality:
Ancient theologians of the first centuries, who developed the doctrine to the “Holy Trinity” were indeed aware of the problem of imagining the ultimate reality as an “individual.
The solution they developed was: There is “one divine Being in three persons”.
That means: The highest , “intelligent”, “energetic reality”, persents itself in three “modes”, with “person” meaning “theatre mask” in Hellenistic usage, or identity as it presents itself to me.
The three essential “persons” are:
1) God as “Father”: “creator”, source of everything there is, source of energy and of inspiration, (who sends the Holy Spirit), who cannot and may not be depicted, according to Mosaic law.
Calling this “person” “father”, indicates authority according to the imagery of patriarchal society and a mode of relating to “him” as to a “father”.
2) the “Son”:
This codifies the perception that the divine “Being” has been perceived in the person of Jesus of Nazareth too, a divine “presence”, which is still to be felt in Jesus after his time of “incarnation”
(- Some theologians will protest, saying that Jesus is resurrected “bodily”, but let them remember St. Paul who wrote that the “body of resurrection” is different to the “material body” of this life, but maintains some identity with it. So it is at best a “bodily resurrection” of sorts, a transformation, indicating the introduction of individuality into the divine sphere: There’s a complex symbolism involved here.-)
Derived herefrom is the idea that the divine presence can also be felt in saintly people, if to a lesser degree.
3) The “Holy Spirit”: the perception and experience of divine presence as “inspiration”, “energy”, “giving of life”, “healing”, “love” and so on. Interestingly this “person” of the Trinity does not take any definite shape but manifests itself in various ways. (The Pentecostals have rediscovered that “person” and focus on it in their practise, making them attractive and grow extremely fast.)
All of these persons share the unfathomable common “divine essence” but mediate them in distinct ways.
The idea in “Holy Trinity” is one of a concentric manifestation: The further away you get from that unfathomable, supreme reality above everything, or rather, to use a different spatial image, at the source and core of everything, - the further away you get, there more diverse and “embodied” it becomes, endowed with “shape”.
That is why a host of “lesser beings” is said to surround the supreme divine being: some dressed in white, more close, some dressed in black at the other end of created reality, as popular imagery has it, associated with “heaven and “hell” respectively.
So much about the theological approach to the problem of how the supreme intelligent and energetic reality can be imagined and may diversify itself in the manifold reality of creation,which has a beginning and an end, which is ours.
Hinduism , by the way, has come up with similar solutions, accentuating the “impersonality” of the supreme Being somewhat more.
2) THE STORY:
Now the story, which may aptly characterise the attitudes of many fundamentalist atheists or secularists, which we also find above:
A peasant comes to the zoo for the first time. He sees:
1) a lion. “My, what a big cat !” he exclaims.
2) a hippo: “What strange huge pigs they have here!”
3) a zebra: “They even paint their horses !”
4) a kangaroo, with its young hopping into the pouch: “Now this I don’t believe any more !” - he protests and walks out.
That means, we find:
1+2) “reductionism”: to reduce the unfamiliar phenomena to what one knows, in place of trying to find out what they are, even at the expense of the phenomena.
3) An “insinuation of evil intent”: See all those accusations of “priestly fraud”, of “make up” or “manipulation” of innocent people who would apparently believe nothing if they had not been told to.
3) “outright denial”: If the spiritual phenomena and recorded experiences (empirical evidence)become too much to take for them, they’d rather turn around than “to have any more of this”.
You can find that peasant in the zoo amply represented in these debates.
Ullrich
P.S. What really strikes me in this debate here is, to what a small degree, if any, South African white culture appears to have absorbed any African elements (nor Indian ones) in thought and spiritual culture: far less that in the United States or in Brasil.
Isn’t that remarkable after more then 350 years of coexistence?
One gets the impression that late 19th century to mid-20 century British culture has been fossilised by and large in SA, and also in many contributions here: a “positivism” and “secularism” also completely untouched by all that postmodern “re-mystification” and re-spritualisation of world views, which developed after the failure of those closed world views of “modernity”, sweeping through the more northern hemisphere.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Grant you don’t want to be saved. That is fine. Why don’t you do us a favor and return the compliment. Your missionary zeal for atheism is a little bit tiresome. You have the truth well bully for you why don’t you sip some more oprganic wine and go off and organize a petitio to free Tibet. Leave the rest of us deluded Catholics in peace. I mean if you are so confident that it is all a hoax it will whither on the vine without neding any help from your own rather limited journalistic abilities. People have been predciting the collapse of teh Catholic Church since about teh time of Emperor Nero so I suppose it must be imminent any time now. You are quite right one billion other people alive today and countless others throughout history are all wrong.
Such a touchy subject Grant. One has to consider that the folks who labour under the belief system of catholicism are not free-thinkers. The vatican is more or less, in their misguided and dare I say arrogant way, doing what they should be doing by giving their followers an updated and relevant set of rules. Oftentimes the old ones were disregarded anyway (which was okay because there was confessional and absolution) so dont expect too much with the new ones. If there are catholics who are unaware of these new moral and ethical issues then its just as well that theyre going to hear about them in church. Hopefully the facts will be correct. Win Win Win.
In my experience the realm of Spirit underlies, or subsumes, all of material creation thus all religious institutions are dealing with the same thing. Unfortunately the human followers of great and successful spiritual investigators, such as Jesus or Mohamed, for example, have appropriated what the originators have found out and then tried to make this information off limits to anybody else who does not fit into a box which they, the followers, have defined. This information, when it comes from genuine spiritual discovery, actually belongs to all of humanity and should therefore be available to anybody who wants to utilise it.
Due the ever increasing flows of information in the modern world more and more people are coming to see for themselves that what I have expressed in the first pargraph is the case and therefore narrow and hidebound religious institutions are losing their traditional grip on their members.
In producing this list the Catholic Church is struggling to come to terms with these changes in human understanding but ultimately it is going to have to recognise that it has not got a lien on spiritual truth, it belongs to anybody who wants to use it.
it is just that they give them different names
The list indicatwes to me that the Catholic Church is struggling to come to terms
Leslie, Rory - The first unique and truly insightful responses on the whole long list. They really do save the best until last! Contrary to popular blog comment belief I have no issue with spirituality or people who feel they need religion. Each to their own. I take serious issue, however, with people who threaten other people. I place the Catholic Church firmly in that category, not because I disagree with many of their undeniably good and noble sentiments, but because they attempt to enforce compliance with fear and indoctrination. They did not issue a code of modern good practice or a list for debate and discussion by the world’s emininent minds; they issued a list of sins. To me the distinction speaks volumes.
No doubt it was a misguided attempt at solving our world’s problems and to do good in their own twisted way but certain things on that list are not open and shut cases of moral simplicity. Most are, in fact, very ambiguous and highly complex issues where the tag of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is simply not adequate to resolve them. In addition, clergy are certainly not qualified, in my opinion, to give us those definitive answers and I believe this list proves it.
You would say that the last comments are unique because they agree with what you belive. Talk about closed minded. Personally I think they are pretty inane and self referential.
Grant why don’t you look at the history of secularism with an open mind. Darwin discovered evolution. It was a great insight which I think almost anybody accepts as a true theory. However evolution fed into social Darwinism which lead directly to eugenics and colonialism. Just as species fought to survive so races did. That is why blacks, aborigines, American Indians etc were not able to survive. They had not evolved as well as the white man. Now do you believe that? The Church always mantained that all men are souls and are created in the image and likeness of God.
Then Nietsche came along who said Christianity was a religion of slaves and Jews. It had overthrown the great free thinking paganism of the Greeks and Romans. We should thorw it out an the ubersmensch would go beyond good and evil. This lead directly to Nazism. The other great atheists were the communists. Out with the opium of the masses. The class struggle drove history you could only enjoy the rights you’r class could defend. The churches were closed priests shot etc and we had 70 years of gulags purges and over 20 million deaths.
What has secular society achieved since the 1960’s and the sexual revolution. Has abortion improved the condition of women anywhere. In fact it has made it worse now we men can shag as many people as we want if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion. Has the breakdown of the family due to easy availability of divorce been good for society. Most children from divorced parents suffer major psychological trauma.
It is the Catholic Church that has instilled a modicum of moral decency in humanity through the ages. The petulant moaning of secularist like yourself is just that the wilfulness of a child who wants the freedom to do what he or she wants without any consequences. As far as your elevation of science goes just look at the consequences. The great minds who worked on the Manhattan project were determined to achieve their goal they never for a moment ever thought about morality. Robert Openheimer himslef became totally opposed to nuclear weapons in his later life and had his security clearance revoked by the Pentagon. Science for science sake is not necessarily the best thing for humanity.
If God is dead then I am afraid everything is permissible.
I forgot to mention that other great moment of secularism the french revoulution. Out with the old Make a God of Reason and start a new with out the old Christian months. What did that lead to the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars which were perhaps a precursor of the world wars. ANother great moment for secular humanism
Grant, because I do not know you from a bar of soap, I took the trouble to read what you had to say in your blog “Some Black and White truths”. I congratulate you on that fine piece of writing. I find it ironic that you are able to be open-minded and eloquent in exhorting people to understand one another across the racial divide. Yet in assessing Catholicism, you come across as utterly bigoted and misinformed. You really do seem blinded by hatred of an institution to which I belong, but which in my experience of it, bears almost no resemblance to your description of it.
Just listen to your characterisation of Catholicism:
- people who threaten other people…
- they attempt to enforce compliance with fear and indoctrination …
- their own twisted way…
I went and did some digging about these new seven mortal sins that are so upsetting you. The “story” that you have latched on to turns out to be a storm in a teacup. A minor Vatican functionary, Gianfranco Girotti, has said in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano (Vatican Newspaper) nothing more than has been said quite frequently by both the former and present Pope: that we should respect the environment and the like, that the pursuit of exhorbitant wealth is indecent, etc etc. Nothing new in this, for heaven’s sake. Jesus himself taught it. As far as I can make out, there has been no formal document issued, no papal decree, no edict, no dogma, no force, no threat. Merely a repetition of what most informed Catholics already know and believe.
The BBC, CNN, and other news agencies have latched on to this, giving it their own spin, headlining seven new mortal sins; blogs and commentators all over the world seem to have grasped at this opportunity to castigate the Church for heaven knows what. All the prejudices, misconstructions and bigotry come crawling out of the woodwork.
In future, it really would be nice if you would treat differences on and about religion with the same dignity and respect that you showed vis-a-vis different racial perceptions.
Yuki
I am afraid you are wasting your time with Grant. He is a closed minded bigot when it comes to religion. He thinks he has the truth and no-one else has.His whole argument has been one of opinion and not much substance. When confronted with a few home truths about the evils of secularism he reponds with the sort of unsubstantiated responses that you highlight. People have asked him to list what he finds objectionable about the Church and he has been extremely silent about this. The Catholic Church is a nice PC target. If he took on Islam he might get a fatwa on his head so he steers clear. If he criticise Judaism teh JDL might pay him a visit, far better to take on the that old faithful the Church.
Leave him alone he is content and salf satisfied. He knows all teh answers. As he has said Mother Teresa is a phony, all the AIDS orphanages and hospices run by the Church in KZN are phony.
Yuki - Again, you have been 95% accurate in your assessment but you leave out the critical point that Mr Girotti was asked if these things were SINS! Not guidelines, good moral values, nice things to do, critical issues to resolve in this decade…but SINS! That label has far reaching implications for those who are followers of the CC.
Also, you used the word hatred. I do not hate the Catholic Church and I certainly do not hate the people who belong to it. Some of my friends and family makes up your numbers. I do, however, disagree strongly with certain things that they teach and the way they use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical laws.
Grant
You sound like another wayward Catholic having your little rebellion. Usually what happens to people like you is that once your own mortality is brought into focus you rapidly return to the fold. the Church will always be there waiting for you to return just like the Prodigal son. When Voltaire was on his deathbed some one called a priest. His students rallied to hsi side and told him to tell the priest to go away. Volatire knowing he was dying looked at his followers and said ” My friends now is not the time to pick a fight”
Why the hell, quite literally, is the concept of sin so objectionable to you ?
What does this concept imply if not that certain actions and attitudes are evil and that they may have consequences, even final consequences.
That such actions could be punished by an absolute Being is almost secondary. Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe that you can land in hell even without divine judgement.
Yet they also believe in final consequences which return upon perpetrators of evil.
Not by divine command but maybe even less forgiving, since the idea of repentance and grace is Christian, Jewish and Islamic.
“Karma” is less forgiving, since it works by intrinsic logic.
“Sin” is actually connected to the idea of real responsibility: to know that one’s actions can be of real and final consequence.
Let us assume things had gone out of control during the Cold War and we had all been fried in a nuclear war, the ultimate holocaust, sort of.
Would you still hesitate to call that “sin”, and perhaps talk about “human freedom” to be defended against fear-mongering ?
Do you really prefer the idea that evil actions should be of no consequences, as long as you don’t get caught and as long, as your lenient judgement against yourself, to which we all are prone, excuses you suitably ?
Is it that sort of willfullness and not being serious that you are fighting for so desperately ?
The concept of sin - and that also means to have philosophers, theologians and people of other fields, like botanists and medics, to say what sins are in particular, and also to have institutions to debate that, to arrive at common conclusions and to to make them known - is this concept of sin and what follows from it as to “structured discourse” (= church) really and logically opposed to “fredom” ?
Is it not rather the opposite of “wilfullness” which does not like to accept any authority above itself to which it can VOLUNTARILY bow ?
I assume that your are of secularised Protestant stock, and heir to many anti-Catholic prejudices and stereotypes, dating back to Henry VIII who disliked the Roman Church for quite personal reasons. Others disliked it for more noble reasons and left it in despair to set up an own shop finally.
The pride on this “freedom of conscience” which the Reformation theologians held, in view of a very oppressive Roman church in their days, was still bound to divine authority, sometimes even more strictly than in the Church of Rome. Their sense of freedom went along with a severe sense of responsibility to a higher authority than their own limited selves of whose fallacy they were all too aware.
Now what seems to have happened during secularisation is that the anti-Roman sentiments have survived, but not the sense of being responsible to an absolute authority of an all-seeing Being, or to any supreme judgement.
Without such a point of reference beyond my limited self my freedom quickly becomes mere willfullness and egoism.
Now you might object: But who says that a church could be an agency to mediate the divine discernment and judgement ?
This implies that the church has to be measured by its own standards. Inspite of many sins there is a lot of merit about which others have written enough here.
Who else should or could fulfil the tasks of a church? Which formation in society could debate and codify that and transmit it to the public by teaching an by example ?
The churches do not consider themselves to be infallible. (Even Papal decrees are considered “infallible” only under very strict limitations and are even then subject to divine judgement.)
The Church of Rome has acknowledged that it is subject to imperfection and sin too, being after all a human body.
But that does not relieve it from the responsibility of giving guidance and standards.
One may not agree with Catholic morals in many instances, nor with their mores too, but that is a matter for debate.
So who could replace that body and organisation suitably with the same effectiveness ? Some politbureau or some body of public educators ? possibly even the press ?
How about journalists as priests, subject to the same responsibilites and requirements?
It might be about time, Grant, to reconsider these things in a wider frame.
Meanwhile I get the impression that the editors were looking for a volunteer to write some really nasty piece about the Catholic Church that would really satisfy the sentiments of the secular portion of the readers, while the religious-minded portion was fed with an article about the economic benefits of the rising number of Pentecostals for South Africa.
So you may have taken up the task and have fought for those sentiments doggedly and undauntedly.
O.K. probably you share those convictions too, as you explained.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Grant - let’s understand the terms that are being used. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (a very orthodox document commissioned by previous pope - many catholic thinkers would have difficulty with aspects of it) defines sin in the following terms:
“Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure of genuine love for God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined [by St Augustine] as ‘an utterance, a deed or a desire contrary to the eternal law.’”
I really don’t see why you want Girotti to confer, debate and backpedal about whether or not it is sinful to be attached to exhorbitant wealth or to be selfishly indifferent to the ecological consequences of one’s actions. Such things seem to me self-evidently sinful. Indeed, many Catholics have been distressed that it has taken the Vatican so long to say something about these matters.
But let me pick up on your broader concern. You say you: “disagree strongly with certain things that they [Catholic Church] teach…” You might be surprised to find that many loyal Catholics strongly disagree with some of the things that the magesterium teaches (I do not say “Church teaches” because we - the members of the church /are/ the Church). For example, it is estimated that some 80% of practicing married Catholics in the western world simply disregard the magesterium’s position on contraception. Many many Catholics have problems with Vatican policies (as opposed to teaching): eg towards divorced people, enforced celibacy and masculinity of the priesthood, etc etc. Yet we continue to be loyal Catholics, because we find much deeper and richer treasures within the Catholic Church.
You then go on to say: “and the way they use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical laws.” Here I find it hard to follow you. Many people (former Catholics and others) seem to have encountered ignorant, boorish and authoritarian church officials (priests, nuns, I don’t know) who somehow use the concepts of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance to biblical law. This has simply not been my general experience of priests, nuns, bishops, and fellow Catholics. Some are indeed, for my liking, too pietistic and too naively compliant with every utterance from the Vatican. And I have met a couple of impossibly anal and uptight priests. But challenges to me if and when I differ from official viewpoints have generally been respectful, intellectual, and tolerant.
So, I am sorry if your general experience of the official Catholic Church is that it uses the concept of sin, hell and guilt to promote compliance… I cannot deny your experience. I can merely point out that it is not consonant with my own. Maybe your experience is derived from BBC reports and other superficial journalistic twaddle, rather than from real face-to-face experience.?
This whole debate reminds me of an event that was supposed to have happend in a monastery in about 1432 where a group of learned gentlemen spent several day debating the number of teeth in a horses mouth, only to be confounded by a novice suggesting they go out and count them in the animal. Almost everything so far propounded comes down to one word “CREDO” I believe - blind faith with no proof. This failing is not exclusive to Catholics but applies to all religions, and dare we say, particularly to Islam. Until you bring proof of the existance of this anthropomorphic creature we call God all religion must, at best, be based on a hypothosis i.e. a supposition made as basis for reasoning, without assumption of truth.
Louis
As so many other atheists, you simply put up straw men, and then bash them down with great bravado.
The debate has not been about the existence or non-existence of God. It has been about the alleged behaviour of the Catholic Church.
I really do not want to get into that circular debate about whether or nor God exists. IMHO, the only intellectually honest position one can assume in this regard is that we simply don’t _know_ the answer. Agnosticism is an intellectually honest position, and I guess to some extent, most of us are ‘agnostic’ - we don’t know for sure that God exists; and we don’t know for sure that God does not exist.
Some unreasonable people may make a _blind_leap_of_faith either way and proclaim themselves as atheists or as theists. Others remain agnostic. Some of the most intellectually honest people I know are in this agnostic position.
Most reasonably people weigh up all the evidence at their disposal (not a blind leap of faith) and either conclude “I can’t accept this God thing” or “Hey man … there seems to be something here” and in each case they make a choice to commit their loyalty and lifestyle to one or other particular non-agnostic position.
This Dawkinsonian notion of religious people making a “blind leap of face” is just so much rhetoric. There is lots of evidence for the existence of God, but whether or not it cumulatively constitutes a reason for belief is a highly subjective decision. Here are some examples of evidence of the transcendent:
- the coherence of nature
- philosophical arguments about a first cause
- alleged paranormal phenomena
- reported near death experiences
- the personal sense of the numinous that Ulrich refers to above
- the testimony of many other believers
- thaumaturgic and otherwise unexplained healings
- subjective experiences of prayer that is answered, sometimes quite dramatically
Of course, as an atheist, you _have_to_ reject each of these as inconclusive. By virtue of your dogmatic atheist stance, you cannot afford to concede that one single smallest of these alleged items of evidence is legitimate. Instead, you demand the same sort of proof that one gets in science.
If you were an intellectual agnostic, you would look at the evidence and say: I honestly don’t know, I have no direct experience myself, and cannot commit to a religious position unless and until I personally have some such decisive experience.
For myself, I find untennable the moral vacuum into which I would be plunged if I embrace atheism or agnosticism. Despite all the utilitarian arguments, etc, I just don’t find a coherent imperative in atheism for moral action. I am not saying atheist are immoral - on the contrary, they are curiously moral. I am saying that the reasons that atheists give me for being moral, don’t make sense to me. They seem to me to be living off their heritage of Christian morality, without really being able to explain why they regard this as good and that as bad. I have had many conversations with atheists in this regard, and I just don’t get it. Maybe I am doff. Maybe I am missing something. If so, it’s not for want of trying to understand atheism at this level.
On the other hand, I find a certain joy, peace, consolation and intellectual coherence in embracing religion in general, and Catholicism in particular. But this is a subjective experience, and I understand that you don’t share it. It would be nice if you acknowledged it is an intellectually honest and worthy position, rather than get into this cyclic “blind faith with no proof” junk. Most of us who have remained religious in this increasingly secular world have not done so lightly. We have agonised and thought about our position. We have been jeered at and pilloried by headlines such as the one on this Blog “Catholics modernise their mumbo-jumbo”. Yet when we peer over the fence at where our opponents live, it appears to us as a vacuous world where many (not all) are intellectual midgets who jump up and down with all sorts of unsubstantiated generalisations, judging centuries of thought and history with superficial grandstanding.
I am going to sign out on this blog now. Can’t afford to devote more time to it.
Grant - thanks for your concessions. I respect that.
Louis
Why don’t we turn it around. Where is your proof that God does not exist. There is plenty of proof that he does. Dawkins claims that life as we know it is a chance a one in a gzillion chance that the right conditions exist. If the world was a few degrees hotter or colder or less carbon based then we would not be here. What is the chance of that happening by itself. Rather remote if you ask me.
By using his infinite alternative universes solution he is guilty of an age old problem in philosophy namely proposing a solution that tends to infinity. The idea of a prime mover behind all this makes much more intellectual sense. The memes argument is similar. If we are all survival machines for memes then waht drives the memes to this frentic creativity. Rahther just exist as an amoeba. Aquinas used the argument about causality to prove God. We all believe in causality. Nothing happens without something making ity happen. That is what science is based on. SO waht made the forst thing happen? The whole big band theory turns on a moment of creation and a finite end to the universe. An alpha and an omega.
I persoanlly find the Catholic explanation more academically fulfilling and believable. But hey I am not as intelligent as you atheists. I only have two masters degrees and a surgical fellowship so I suppose I am just dumb.
PS try and be a bit more polite when you argue. Using emotive language seldom convinces your opponents
Time too for me to bow out,
and I might stick to it.
It was fine to meet some noble souls and minds here. Special regards to Yuki and Hopeful and some others too who will know.
The phenomenon of a pretty vulgar atheism will keep us “happy” for quite a while still.
To those interested: We have a real turn in dominant public orientation here in Germany with regard to religion, which is not only reflected in the statistics about the significantrise of religious orientation in younger generations, but also in public debate.
Our leading left-liberal journal (comparable in format to Newseek or Time magazine) the SPIEGEL, which used to revel in anti-clerical an anti-religious sentiments and argument has made a significant turn-around over the past three or four years, which was attached to a debate about some writings of famed Heidelberg Egyptologist and historian of culture Jan Assman on the Egyptian heritage and the Mosaic limitation to monotheism. In essence Assmann claimed that the pantheism and panentheism of Egypt, thus Egyptian paganism, had brought forth a non-violent, tolerant society, whereas the monotheistic “narrowing” of faith was necessarily bound to a delimitation of what is good and bad, thus to ethics, the “Mosaic distinction” mbetwee right and wrong, good and evil in culturally distinct norms. This he claimed to have brought about a potential of violence manifest in the history of the monotheistic religions.
The interesting thing was that the confrontation now was not between atheism and religion but between polytheism and monotheism (of which Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, in a way, the “softest” variants.
This polarity between Christianity and Paganism seems to be an upcoming topic which the SPIEGEL, alert as ever had sensed.
O, by the way, some thirtyfive years ago the present pope, then stil professor at Regensburg or maybe already archbishop of Munich wrote a spirited and defense of Neoplatonic studies, which was till a courageous thing to do in ecclesiastical circles. -
But back to the SPIGEL’s article and its author.
The SPIEGEL followed up the public debate raised by Assmann, presenting and advancing the it with several intervies and with some good in-depth research in background articles with reknowned scholars in the fields concerned.
Initially one could see, how the SPIEGEL tried to keep up the customary mocking tone and attitude to religion in general, which had been a mark of the SPIEGEL for so long.
But then one could observe how even within one long article a change of attitude came about, and one could see that the author, a professed agnostic seemed to have discovered something which was touching him: a sense of seriousness, something precious which perceptibly intrigued him and began to take effect.
The article then took a turn: the tone became modest, serious, personal. the author ended up with a statement which said, that that regardless of all of the critical aspects of Mosaic religion and in spite of his personal agnosticism he found that this religion summed up to a commandment for which he knew no better alternative and well worth to be considered and he quoted Micah 6,8: “He hath shewed thee o man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk rightly with thy God”
Since that article the general attitude of the SPIEGEL has changed and they have begun to write seriously about religion, which was rare before.
This development reflects a general change in attitude here. It is a tentative quest which can be observed, but a realisation that the issue is about something precious and serious.
Of course that vulgar mass atheism will continue for quite a while. Such cultural movements are like those of tankers. Some time from the 1830’s onwards, materialism became the norm. It too a few generations to become the dominant attitude, significantly in the late 19th century (Marx, Feuerbach), then after the 1st World war for the next five decades or so, during which it became a mass phenomenon, after it had been the cultural norm of “reasonable people” for some time.
But in the last decades of the 20th century counter moements in various fields of thought, which had developed of the past 100 years already, were increasingly takion effect and gained acceptance.
The shift in general intellectual “climate” can be observed in various places over the past years in particular.
But that again takes effect only gradually.
maybe the agressive rantings of Dawkins and his ilk reflect the perceived loss, that their cognitive biases ( - we all have them -) are the general norm.
With atheism having become a vulgar phenomenon we have to accept that it expresses itself acordingly.
There have also been vulgar polemics enough in the churches, which we should not forget, when we were fighting amongst ourselves.
So there might be time for a “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!” during this time of lent and to set an example.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on March 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Hi Hopeful
Firstly I consider myself an agnostic not an aethiest. I believe something caused all this marvelous universe we see arround us. I have a couple of degrees myself bye the way. What I do not accept for myself is the necessity to have to create an anthromorphic Humanoid God to explain all these marvels. I know several Nuns who are very fine women and live a very selfless and careing life, I also know a few Priest who I would not allow anywhere near my grandchildren. Out on the hills far from the city at night I don’t think anyone would not be able to feel that there is something wonderful out there, but, I don’t need the social manipulation of any religion to impose its dogma on me to explain that basic feeling of awe.
Louis
@ Concerned
You have misunderstood Nietzsche. He never said Christianity was a religion of slaves and Jews. He said Christianity AND Judaism was a religion that promoted a slave mentality.
A subtle but significant difference. The Nazis misinterpreted and changed his philosophy to suit their aims.
I consider myself an atheist, but athiestic arrogance annoys me. Being an atheist does not imply a higher IQ, or an inability to trust bad science.Many of the worlds greatest thinkers have been deeply religious.
And Richard Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist, but ultimately he can be criticised on many levels as well. And no one (not even him) can prove scientifically that god does NOT exist, just as no one can prove that he can. That has been a philosophical debate for centuries.
Lisa
I am not sure whether I have misinterpreted Nietsche but I accept your point of view. I am gald that atheistic arrogance upsests you and I can assure you that religious arrogance upsets me. The whole blog seems to have been written with an intention to antagonize rather than debate. It seems that the tone has softened with the last couple of posts and I welcome that.
Ag Shame
Grant believes in the Big Bang and he is not
alone,others think they should have
their own Big Bang right here on earth and
it brought them no more than misery in the
form of Aids and other STDs.
Here is a question to ponder over has anything
ever been created out of nothing and do
scientists not just discover things that
exist?
@Ullrich
To respond to your posting a little higher up. I think it is a fairly accurate perception of faith. I tend to see the behaviour of religious people - from the pope in his ridiculous over the top garments to congregants with arms waving about in apparent rapture - as somewhat cartoon-like. So yes, that is exactly what my perception of religious faith is; and yes, it is rather sad.
Many good people relate their goodness not to a faith in some transcendent being (which amounts to nothing more than superstition), one does not need faith to find goodness. Your position implicitly implies that one does. This is not the case.
Indeed there are many robbers and murderers among the faithful! In fact many of them were leaders of the faithful murdering in the name of their faith! But more to the point, there are robbers and murderers among those who don’t have faith; and, believe it or not, they too can know that it is wrong and they too can feel varying degrees of remorse. One does not need the baggage of a religion to explain these things. The Christian tradition is full of repentant robbers because human tradition is full of repentant robbers, from time immemorial. All these biblical characters were human and so to were their actions and emotions. The common denominator is not religion – that aspect is redundant; the common denominator is humanity.
No, Hitler etc. did not kill in the name of any faith; they killed in the name of their respective goals, ideals and political amibitions. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
As for the difference in percentage of atheists in the two respective age-groups you present for only one country, I can only think that this is because the older one gets, the less prone one is to believing rubbish.
Jean
I think the whole point of this discussion has been the fairly obvious observation that humanity is pretty rotten. Grant started off implying that only religious nuts committed acts of violence and that somehow secular people did not. Various post have pointed out that this is not true. Remove God and things do not automatically get better. To be a true atheist is a brave and lonely experience. Read ALbert Camus and teh Myth of Sisyphus and the Outsider for an analysis of existentailist angst at the thought that we are alone and this is all there is. Flippant posts about how liberating it is and how everyone else who has faith are dumb are not very helpful and come across as so much misplaced bravado. The person of faith believes that there is a benign cause of all this and that ultimatley the universe is not as Camus put it absurd. I doubt veyr much whether there are any trues atheists out there. What Ulrich was saying is that there is a growing move to new age spiritualism in teh west. This is true and in my view reflects the fact that post modern humanity is still in need of teh spiritual. Go to your nearest exclsive books and look at the spirituality section. Using terms like not beliveing in rubbish does not help you advance your argument. If you are truly an atheist I somehow admire your courage and ability to function. However very many highly intelligent people and a vast number of not so intelligent people believe in a benign creator. Please try and not assume an arrogance in your arguments againsty faith
This is probably too late to reach you - I got into this TL only yesterday - but just in case ..
It is your PS above out of all your writings here that gets to the core of the problem.
White culture does appear to have fossilised in SA; that is what you would expect when you recall that apartheid cut the country off from the mainstream, from the huge advances in democracy and thought since WWII, which is why what strikes you in this debate is the, in European terms, outdated ‘positivism’ and ’secularism’.
It is hard to see how this gap can easily be closed. Debate in SA today rages around issues of race, relativism, moral equivalence, issues perhaps in turn being left behind in a world moving more confidently beyond post-modernism.
Mother Hubbard,
Sorry for the late reply. In response, I don’t think humanity is rotten. I think humanity is doing remarkably well. In relation to the past we treat each other with a respect and understanding not seen before on this scale. Progress is being made. Of course, complete harmony is impossible – resources are finite, demand isn’t, etc. – and our society will never be a perfect, utopian society; but that’s irrelevant, the idea of perfection is ultimately a human conception and I don’t think it correct to apply it to any worldview, as it doesn’t really have any bearing on metaphysical realities. But back to the point, religion has caused, and continues to cause, much suffering, whilst its benefits – if indeed there are any - are negligible. Removing God(s) and especially their supposed doctrines is not sufficient for improvement, I grant you that, but it is a necessary step.
As for your comments on atheism, I wouldn’t call myself an Atheist. It’s a position the very definition of which relies on the existence of exactly that which it opposes. An untenable view if ever there was one – almost as untenable as its contrary. Suffice to say that my worldview does not encompass the supernatural; that is my position, call it what you will. I think ‘Bright’ is the increasingly popular term. Anyway, to follow your train of thought; I agree, not believing in a God is potentially a lonely experience. The reasons for this require lengthy discussion, and I don’t have the time, nor your patience I’m sure, to engage in it. Briefly, I will say that this loneliness is simply a social issue. If the majority of society were not religious, then those whose worldview does not encompass any supernatural entities wouldn’t feel so lonely. On the other hand, if you’re speaking of loneliness in terms of not having some supernatural being to keep you company and watch over you for the duration of your existence, my response would be to say that the comfort (or lack of loneliness) one gets from believing in a God has no bearing, nor should, on the veracity of that belief. It would feel wonderful if I believed I was going to win the lottery this weekend, but I’m not going to live my life according to that belief simply because it makes me feel better.
As for the aspect of bravery which you mention, if people believe in God because they aren’t brave enough not to, then they aren’t Christians (or whatever other religion), they are cowards. One must believe in God because one knows he exists and for no other reason. Unfortunately, nobody knows this, no matter how much they insist that they do!
I have read both the books to which you refer. I don’t deny the angst associated with the human condition, but again this does not mean a God exists or that it’s right to believe in one. All it means is that it’s lonely to be alive. Believing that there is a benign cause because one cannot live in the face of absurdity is the wrong reason to believe. This, incidentally, was where Camus said humans achieve their greatest triumph; to live despite this absurdity; to live in the face of this absurdity. Thus he celebrates that moment when Sisyphus, having reached the top of the hill and watched his boulder roll back down, once again descends to the bottom and begins to push it up again; this rebellion against the absurdity – and futility maybe? – of repeatedly pushing a boulder up a hill – of life, - is where man, for Camus, reaches his greatest standing. If you’re using Camus’ notion of absurdity as a reason to believe in a benign cause, then you shouldn’t refer to him as you clearly don’t understand his philsophy.
As for flippant posts; they are just that, flippant. I think now and then, there is a place for them in discussion. With regards to your accusation of arrogance, just because belief in a God, and religious doctrine, have survived and entrenched themselves in our culture does not mean that they should be placed on a pedestal. There is no more justification or merit in believing the kind of worldview which encompasses the supernatural, than there is in still believing that the earth is flat. Would you come across as arrogant when arguing against someone who still believed something as absurd as the earth still being flat?
Furthermore, if, as I suspect, you are indeed Christian then you believe that you have a handle on the absolute truth. That your minister was chosen by the creator of the universe to be one of his point-men on earth, and that everything else incompatible with your holy book is simply wrong; cherry-picked re-interpretations of the Bible notwithstanding! In any case, given your beliefs I do no think that you are in any position to accuse others of arrogance.
To your final point. There might be a yearning for the spiritual, in fact I think there is a yearning for the spiritual - on this we agree. But that does not mean religion should have a place in society, it means that the spiritual should. While religion necessarily encompasses the spiritual, the spiritual does not necessarily encompass religion.
Given that all religions, each one claiming a handle on the absolute truth, give rise to spiritual experinces, we must accept that the spiritual does not rely on any one religion tobe achieved. Spiritual awareness can be achieved by means of fasting, meditating, listen to music, helping our fellow man, etc. Suffice to say, we can live spiritually without being religious. For while religions encompass rituals which give rise to spiritual experiences, these practices do not depend on those religion to exist. In any event, its only a matter of time before our understanding of the brain and the mind allows us to give a perfectly rational naturalistic explanation for the spiritual and our experiences of it; and these explanations won’t depend upon superstitious ideas of the supernatural. You imply that our need for spirituality is the reason religion still has a role to play in society, this is not the case. It is simply the reason that spirituality has a role to play in our society. To suggest the former is opportunistic and deliberately misleading.
The Catholic church in the UK has just influenced Catholic members of parliament to vote against a bill allowing the creation of human/animal stem cell hybrids to continue thus far extremely succesful research into treating diseasea like Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimers. Surely the life of a grown person suffering from a painful debilitating disease is far more important than a handful of cells (I think its about 3-5) in a petri dish? Just to put things in perspective, there are about 100 cells in the brain of a fly!
Is this not yet another example of the debilitating role religion plays in our society?
Jean
I think I do understand what Camus was on about. I think it is a misplaced philosophy and that is why I reject it. I do not belive in God becuase I am afraid. As to the Catholic church holding back science well we must look at the fruits of science. What has science/technology done for us. It has allowed us to endanger our whole planet to exploit the earth to the n th degree. Look at the atom bomb it was a great scientific achievement as is the devlopment of naplam and smart bombs and even xyklon B. Science without morality is a great danger to us all. If we ignore the sanctity of human life we open all sorts of pandora’s boxes. The spiritual without organized religion oftne becomes merely self indulgnet and directionless. The arrogance of secularism is misplaced. The secularists believe that without the Church they will be able to create a wonderful utopia where oppression and inequality are banished. That is an extremly arrogant position. In my dealings with humanity I am exposed to naked cruelty and violence on a daily basis. I very mush doubt that secularism will be able to solve the problem of humanity’s cruelty and avarice
Jean and Grant
I am a life long practicing Catholic. I believe in God and base this on a knowledge I derive from my faith. I don’t agree with atheism and I generally don’t get involved in discussions about religion because they don’t take anyone forward. I go to Mass I pray and I don’t ever push my faith on anyone. I don’t interfere with others. However the posts on this blog surpirse me with their vehemence. Jean says it is a pre-requisite that organized religion be overthrown. Wow that is a bit of a manifesto. Why are you Jean and Grant so violently opposed to teh Catholic Church. You are not forced to believe anything. No one makes you go to Mass. Why can you not live and let live. Yes we do believe we have a truth of inestimable value and I will never hide it from some-one who comes searching. I certainly don’t believe in converting anyone by force. That is why the vehemence of you atheists is somewhat surprising. Why can’t we just discuss and the agree to disagree. I believe I have a truth and you obviously believe that you have a truth. Why the stridency?
Samantha
Jean
I have never come across a post of such wonderful eloquence before. You have moved me to teh very core of my being. My random collection of atoms and particles that just by chance happen to result in a thinking human being are just buzzing around in my head.
Wow. Now why didn’t I think of some of those profound things. We don’t need organized religion just some Wiccan books and a few bath salts to get us in touch with our Inner Goddess.
Mother Hubbard,
You might reject Camus’ philosophy, but you have yet to explain why you embrace religious theology. I find it funny how you complain about science and all the bad things its given rise to whilst communicating via a medium which science, not God, made possible! The list of benefits derived from science is far longer, believe me. If you want to discuss the relative merits of science and religion, think about when you’re in a dark room and need some light. Do you get down on your knees and pray for light, or do you walk over to the wall and flick on a light switch?! I do agree with you though, science without morality is a great danger. However, it’s wrong to think that God is necessary for morality. Before Moses went up the mountain and was given the commandments, do you think everyone in the camp down below had no idea that stealing, murdering and sleeping with each other’s wives was wrong? Think of it this way, are you telling me that the only reason you don’t murder, steal or commit adultery for eg. is because God happened to tell you not to? If that’s the case, then I’m concerned, but I don’t think it is. In any case, do you really want to get started on the violence religion has given rise to; a Pandora’s box if ever there was one!
As for ignoring the sanctity of life, my definition of life encompasses far more than a few stem cells. It encompasses the ability to suffer, to love etc. The Church’s is a very simplistic definition; and inevitably leads to the kind of absurdities we’re seeing in, specifically but not only, the Catholic Church’s response to this research.
Why do your spiritual experiences need to be directed by someone else? How does it become self-indulgent?
Lastly, I don’t believe secular society will be a utopian one, in fact I pointed that out in my previous post. Perfection is a dream, it has no bearing on reality. That said, I do think that secular societies are far better at achieving the goals humans commonly aspire to. Think of Sweden, Norway Finland etc. They are the most secular and have the lowest abortion rates, the lowest murder rates, the lowest teenage pregnancy rates the highest levels of education. It’s ironic that in this sense, their lifestyles are the most Christian! They are by no means utopian though! If I’m being arrogant I apologise. I also deal with humanity, and while I don’t deny the nasty, I don’t deny the good either. Secularism won’t get rid of the nasty bits, but it will get rid of the nasty bits that religion gives rise to; which is progress.
Samantha,
I don’t think its fair to bracket Grant in on what I’ve said, he probably disagrees with quite a lot of it and I don’t think his tone would have been quite so condescending as mine!
I think discussions about religion do take things forward, and maybe you should get involved in them from time to time. Its good that you don’t interfere with others. However, your religion requires that you spread the ‘good news’ as it were, it requires that you stop others from having abortions, or undertaking research into Alzheimers and that’s why it is not enough for you to say I don’t get involved. You subscribe to an institution which believes it has a duty to force soceity to subscribe to its own doctrine, because they think it is the complete truth as revealed to them etc etc.
I don’t think debate is violent, in that sense its wrong to say that I’m ‘violently’ opposed to the Catholic Church. Strong worded criticisms, even arrogant tones, do not constitute violence. Given the Catholic Church’s history, its probably better not to raise the issue of violence.
I’m not forced to believe anything, yes, but your institution attempts to force me to live according to beliefs which are yours not mine. I can’t live and let live, because I don’t want potential life-saving stem-cell research stopped because some old man in the Vatican thinks three cells in a Petri dish constitutes a human being!
Lastly, I don’t believe I have an ultimate truth as you do. I accept what I feel is reasonable to accept, based on evidence and argument, and when new evidence emerges or better arguments emerge, I have no problem accepting that what I previously accepted was wrong. Religious people can’t really do that can they, given the fact that they already had the truth revealed to them!
Anyway, thats enough. I’ve become a caricature of myself in these posts so I’ll stop now.
As for thank the Goddess - enough said!
As for
Well Jean
Thank you for your posts. It does unfortuantely seem that there is no middle ground. As a Catholic I can assure you that I will never accept the idea that human life is not sacred and that we can have a cavalier attitude towards it. Abortion is murder as is stem cell research. You atheists wil have to accept that your points of view are not accepted by everyone else and that we will oppose it. Remember the Nazis were atheists too and look what their eugenics program lead to. It is a slippery slope but it is indeed very slippery.
There are a number of issues with atheism.
1. There is no proof of God. The atheists use this as there trumps all argument. Show us proof and we may believe they say. Well there is plenty of proof. God is the most eloquent and simple answer to the whole issue of why we are here and do we have a purpose. According to atheism we are all a simple chance event. There are infinite universes where the right or different conditions for life exist. So that precludes the need for a creator. However it takes more faith to believe in infinite other universes (none of which we have any proof for) than to believe in a benign creator. The overwhelming fact that most human beings feel they are here for a purpose seems to be ignored by atheists.
2. Religion has been responsible for death and violence throughout history. Before we had monotheism we were peaceful and tolerant. This is the Golden Age argument. There is little evidence that we were ever peaceful. Even primitive tribes in the Amazon had well established rituals of war and violence. The rise of disbelief in the 20 th century has been pushed by several organizations who themselves have been extremely violent. Communism made militant atheism part of its dogma and the results are apparent. The Nazis sought to establish a neo-pagan religion and similarly they resorted to massive killing. Paul Johnson says that we have to admit that with Christianity humanity has been bad but how much worse would it have been without Christianity?
3. We don’t get our morals from a book say the atheists. Well neither do Catholics. Catholic moral teaching is based on reflection and the use of reason. One cannot deny the profound influence Catholic teaching has had on ethics. The mere fact that Paul said there is no such thing as slave and freeman meant that it was impossible to create a spiritual justification for slavery. The sanctity of human life mean that we embarked on a long pilgrimage to our current understanding that execution is wrong. The atheists have by and large been unable to generate a code of morality. Kant who was himself a profoundly religious man developed an enduring secular morality which whilst it is adamant that it comes from reason approximates much of Christian teaching. For example his maxim that we can never treat another human being as a means is very similar to Christ’s injunction to Do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The fact that atheism leads to moral collapse is best exemplified by the Marquis de Sade. He was profoundly influenced by the enlightenment and once he discounted the idea of a benign God moved towards a philosophy of profound sensual enjoyment even if this was at the expense of others. He was perhaps the greatest atheist as he accepted the consequence and explored them to their final conclusion.
4. Atheism is satisfying as a philosophy and a belief. Atheism remains a cry of despair. There is no future there is no point to it all. We go on like Camus in the face of an absurd uncaring universe. When we die our atoms return to some sort of cosmic dust. Atheism tends to arise in rich countries. It is unheard of in Africa or South America. Why is that? The atheists say quite smugly because we are educated and enlightened. Perhaps it is because they are by and large divorced from the naked reality of human suffering. If you are so divorced from the human condition that you don’t even tolerate the smell of human sweat and effluent then you are often divorced from the fact that we all suffer and die. In the modern world death is clinical in hospitals as is birth. There is very little in the way of blood guts and shit in the modern developed world. Yet that is the world Christ experienced as a Man. He was born in a stable he did not have running water or air conditioning. He was a third world Christ. So the poor and unwashed respond to Christ. The rich keep him at arms length.
5. Atheism is tolerant and open to debate .The modern strident and smug atheist movement is hardly tolerant of counter arguments. They set the whole argument up in a way which will always polarize. When people of faith begin to explain why they believe the atheists simply become strident and start chanting their refrain of where is the proof. In many ways atheism has become a cult. It has it’s high priests namely Dawkins and Hitchens. It has its own Holy Books and it refuses to discuss only to shout. In the modern world no –one is forced to believe anyone yet the way atheists carry on you would think they were living in Isabella’s Spain. They use traditional anti-Catholic propaganda much of which was generated by Protestant apologists during the wars of religion to inflame anti-Catholic sentiments. It is like us still getting upset about accusations that German soldiers killed Belgian Baby’s during the early part of WWI. This was acknowledged after the war as being Allied propaganda. So paradoxically the atheists simply echo the propaganda of the No-popery men without realizing it. The Catholic Church of the 21 st century stands without secular power as a force for moral good. It speaks truth to power and often pays the price.
don’t think its fair to bracket Grant in on what I’ve said, he probably disagrees with quite a lot of it and I don’t think his tone would have been quite so condescending as mine!
Well actually Jean the words shrill strident and self righteous come to mind more than condescending. There is a difference don’t you know
Sweden which Jean holds up as such a great place has one of the more notorious arms industries around. As you know it is great to have a secular paradise especially when you are exporting death an ddestruction by the bucketload to the Third world. Once again teh all too human sin of hypocrisy
Hello Paul,
Having popped in just now to see how the debate went on, I came accross your lines.
Thanks for the appreciation !
It seems some editors of M&G seem to have read this blog too, because a whole series of articles followed over these days which picked up the cues: like a brief message about a black African Krishnaite saddhu and others too on aspects of post-modern spiritual developments.
Even Grant’s reflections on the theme of “bodily resurrection” from an atheist perspective on Easter may be counted here.
As to Grant he picked up the cue of ministering to the atheists with his “sermon” on bodily resurrection in the form of molecules rearranging themselves differently after our deaths. He could find himself in good company with Buddhists in that view, who might add some extras of theirs.
Living here in Germany for a long time I could again experience the intellectual flexibility and openness to new developments also characteristic of South Africa, besides that cultural conservatism, when I did some courses at UNISA. There may be some advantages of being “at the fringes”.
As to immersing oneself in the culture of the people around oneself, from a white perspective: maybe this will become stronger, once the issues relating to the distribution of wealth and social opportunities after apartheid are no longer dominant and people meet not only about issues of social assets.
Indeed the relative marginality of being a white person in SA could become a cultural and spiritual asset. (This is not meant to be condescending, but rather with some sense of envy, as writing from a very homogeneous culture here.)
Actually all emigrant cultures seem to be conservative. Germans in Brazil or Russia have preserved many ways which have been lost in Germany itself - and just think of the Amish in the USA.
What fascinates me about developments in Brasil is how Brasilians are consciously tracing their cultural roots to al three races: American Indian, White and Black. All of these influnces merge in their culture which is so rich, not only in music but also in spiritual movements: within the church, in Pentecostal and Catholic spiritual perceptions and liturgical expression, but also outside of it, in Umbanda which synthesises Yoruba and Bantu traditions with European spiritualist thought and some Indian views. Interestngly the Roman Cathlic church there is quite tolerant of Umbanda, regarding it as some kind of inferior sister religion, whereas the Pentecostals fight against it fiercely as being of the devil. (Which does not prevent them from adopting many elements of Umband ritual into their own services.)If it were not for the language barrier South Africans might relate more strongly to Brasil, but perhaps it is a bit too “Roman” (Catholic and Portuguese) for SA tastes.
However there are interesting things happening in SA too as to religious developments: The “Zionists” have preserved much of African Traditional Religion in cosmology, spiritual practise and liturgy. It is also reported that its founder, Isaiah Shembe, had also adopted significant ideas from Hinduism in Natal. These “alien” heritages have caused serious concerns about Zionism to be “syncretistic” -which could actually be a badge of honour, since Christianity in its vital and radiant stages has been very syncretistic, assimilating much religious thought and practise from heathens and pagans around and growing by it.
So with Zionism there is something “new and exciting” developing out of the encounter of the different peoples and religions in South Africa. But as we know Zionism has not exactly spread much beyond the black population.
Maybe time to take a closer look at these movements, than to indulge in the sectarian battles of atheists fighting a gainst the respiritualisation of culture as “Mother Hubbard”, very thoughtfully, and “thank the Goddess”, with freakish sarcasm, have likewise suggested.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on April 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 am
@Ullrich -
All interesting points, not widely shared or even perhaps welcome here yet, maybe.
It seems to me settlement in S. America, especially perhaps in Brazil, inclined from the beginning more towards ‘melding’ than ‘apartheid’, the form it took in southern Africa. Part of it seems to be traceable to the ecumenical/’New Testament’ tendency of the ‘Roman’ settlement in S. Am. compared to the Protestant/’Old Testament’ settlement here. Nineteenth century scientism, with its hierarchy of ‘races’, and the rise of nationalism and urbanisation, would then have found fertile soil in which to grow the differences.
It is often overlooked here that Europeans way back learned to borrow from each other - and from anyone else, past or present, who had a good idea.
When Thabo Mbeki mooted the idea of an ‘African Renaissance’ at the beginning of his presidency, I remember an encouraging article from Pallo Jordan, arts & culture minister now, saying this meant seizing on all usable ideas from whatever source. I doubt if it went down well in the ANC, and you certainly hear nothing along those lines right now.
Trouble also was that Mbeki never defined what a ‘Renaissance’ meant in African terms - which left it open to a cynical French wit recently to comment in a letter to a newspaper here that now the Renaissance has been and gone, perhaps it is time for a Reformation.
I will readily agree.
To pick up your observations on “Renaissance”: if we look closely at it, it did not involve a “return to one’s own roots” as it may be understood. Let’s remembered what actually happened in Italian Renaissance: The Italian principalities, resentful of a millenium of Germanic domination - quite a long colonial period actually - sought liberation and a return to their own former glory of the Roman empire.
Since Latin culture however had become the intellectual property of France and Germany with their emergent universities, an alternative was needed for cultural identification. Fortunately for the Italians the Byzantine empire was just about dying at the hands of the Turks and as a result of own faults (including the harsh apartheid which the Greeks practised towards their oriental fellow citizens in Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor - and still practise today in Greek orthodox church circles). So an exodus of talented Greeks, of scholars, medics, and artisans began, of people who were just too happy to get a “green card” from the Italian principalities. The Italians, mindfull that Rome’s culture had always been centered in Greece, were all too happy to receive them.
So “renaissance” actually involved a process by which the Italians and then other Europeans studied an “alien” culture: that of Greece, maybe more thoroughly than the ancient Romans ever had done.
So the paradigm of “renaissance” does not mean a return to one’s own cultural roots, but growth by assimilation of other, superior cultures. A “renaissance” as an invigoration, to rise again may be a result, but it is no restoration at all.
What Mbeki may have had in mind was more likely a “National Romanticism” a developed from the 1800’s onwards, well into the early 20th century, when Scandinavians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles, Germans and Russians became interested what the culture of their tribal ancestors was, and how distinct national traits and traditions could be preserved or revived.
But none of those sober in their minds would have chosen to return to forms of social organisation and rulership of those days.
So what could that spell for SA ? Where could “African renaissance” draw its inspiration from ? - or is it actually about some “National Romanticism” in the lines of Credo Mutwa, for example ?
Now it is about time to thank Grant for his generosity with this forum.
I feel he has taken “Oom Frikkie’s” kind words to his heart.
Thanks Grant !
Now I may have to justify, why I, as a protestant, have been defending the Church of Rome so staunchly. It is simply the recognition that, in spite of all of its frequently harsh and authoritarian practise, the Roman Catholic church has a degree of tolerance and inclusiveness of theological approach, even verging on pantheism, which is unsurpassed by any oter denomination , even my own.
It is for this reason that it was Jesuite missionaries and scholars, who brought Zen Buddhism to the West,which would have been utterly immpossible to any protestant minister.
For all of the protestants’ merits in social respects, like the determined fight against slavery - just remember that staunch evangelical Wiliam Wilberforce - for all these merits, the protestant theological horizon is far narrower than the Catholic.
And isn’t ironic that in the middle of the 20th century the present pope, then still Professor Ratzinger in Regensburg, had been officially criticised by the then papal authorities, as an “unreliable theologian”, together with two other reknowned Catholic theologians. Somehow Ratzinger survived that and made it to become pope.
His broadmindedness reappears every now and then, like with his initiative of creating a standing committe of official exchange with Islamic theologians of authority. If that works out it might save many a soldier’s life in Afghanistan or elsewhere in the region.
There is no similar protestant initiative, because protestants are barred dogmatically from acknowledging that there is a large common basis of faith and cognition of God, which the Catholics with their idea of degrees of convergence can. So that is why the present and the former pope could pray in mosques, which a protestant is not supposed to do.
And perhaps there is such “inclusivism” also to be found on the Muslim side, apart from the terrible aggressive fundamentalisms raging from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan: Some weeks ago I could observe, on a visit in Syria, that Muslim women (and their families) were also praying at shrines to Mary, Mother of God, or to St. Tekla, in Christian Orthodox and Catholic churches, alongside with the Christians. It was relieving and encouraging to see this happen.
So after all religions could actually bring people of different faiths together too.
Seeing that the present Pope Benedict- for all his faults and authoritarianisms - is engaged in this direction on a solid basis of theology, is one reason for me to defend his church.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on April 24th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Whether Grant’s oppinions of the Catholic church are right or wrong, the fact that the pope and other hierachial figures feel that they can add rules and threats to a religion that was created by God shows the great fallacy of the religious argument.How can the Catholic church possibly validate any story of the bible now?
the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches draw certain consequences from the statement of the creed that the church is a product of the Holy Spirit and, for all its inmperfections inspired by it. They are also mindful of the fact that it was the early church, which decided, which of the large number of gosples and apostolic letters that existed were to be included in that volume which became known and officially endorsed as the “New Testament”: thus the Church precedes the Bible as to the New Testament. therefore the doctrine of faith too is open to development. Accordingly both churches have developed a set procedure: only what is accepted by the general community of believers, the lay people and the clergy, can become new doctrine. The pope or patriarch and the bishops and synod can only proclaim to be doctrine or element of faiith if this has undergone a broad process of debate and acceptance. This is what happens even in our times.
Protestants are at a structural deficit: any innovations must be presented as already existing in Holy Scripture. So in principle innovations or new developments are rejected or left to be practised without special endorsement.
As to getting lost in high theology: it is like hiking in the mountains: there is a chance of getting lost but it is fascinating too, especially if you come across mountain pools you did not expect or some high valley you were not aware of.
Ullrich R. Kleinhempel on May 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The problem is the premises on which theology is based. They have no basis in reality. In might be fun, granted, but its not academically worthwhile. Its a bit like people endlessly debating the ins and outs of Star Trek episodes. While it might be fun, it has no basis in reality other than maybe some degree of cultural significance.
As for your analogy about hiking in the mountains, thats the best illustration of academic endaevour I’ve ever heard. Nice one.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
The human brain is made of atoms. Atoms consist primarily of empty space. It is fair to say, therefore, that my head is basically empty. That will please those of you who disagree with what I say until it dawns on you that your head is empty too.
So, based on the undeniable fact that our heads are fundamentally comprised of emptiness, is anything we think or say of any real value?
Probably not.
Remember that next time you are fuming at some point of view contrary to your own.
The recent fracas surrounding Zapiro's drawing of the Prophet Muhammad has predictably culminated in the usual death threats from irate Muslims. Both ...
Being a South African over the past few weeks has been a turbulent experience. The excitement of the looming Fifa World Cup has been tempered by a deg...
In March of 1991 after months of nationalistic propaganda and other divisive rhetoric from Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman, a small group of Ser...
The name Zanu-PF used to be synonymous with liberation as was the ANC. It used to stand for the high ideals of fighting oppression at great cost to th...
Government, it seems, wants to control our access to porn on DSTV. Thank goodness we have them to look out for us. We are clearly not capable of makin...
Loading ...
I’d add to that list of mortal sins Bad Journalism, but that’s just me:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/2232-Sensationalist-Reporting-Muddles-Catholic-Social-Teaching.html
(Report abuse)