Eh, religion by itself isn't so bad, provided you aren't a fundamentalist wacko like Kirk Cameron. If you can partition your mind in such a way where religion is relegated to fulfilling spiritual needs/desires without interfering with your ability to think about the physical world rationally, it's more or less harmless. Granted, not everyone can partition their minds in that manner and that is a problem.
So religion isn't so bad as long as you don't actually believe it?
No, you just have to be selective as to how you interpret it. If you take the Old Testament story of creation as a metaphor instead of a literal telling as to how the world was created, then there is no problem as that doesn't conflict with reality. If you take a view that the supreme creator being of your religion established the laws of nature (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) when creating the universe and generally prefers to work through these laws as opposed to always jumping in and performing miracles, also no problem.
The best example I can think of is Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's a Stephen J. Gould award winning evolutionary biology professor at Brown University. He often tours the country testifying in court cases against creationism and intelligent design. He's certainly much smarter than any of us. He also happens to be a devout Catholic. He is definitely someone who can separate using religion for fulfilling his spiritual needs and desires without letting it affect his ability to look at the physical world rationally. Of course, it helps his case that much of modern Catholic theology states that you have to take much, if not all, of the Bible as metaphor instead of literal truth.
He is definitely someone who can separate using religion for fulfilling his spiritual needs and desires without letting it affect his ability to look at the physical world rationally.
But this introduces an obligatory cognitive dissonance. Catholicism has some fairly specific belief requirements that are at odds with observed reality.
He is definitely someone who can separate using religion for fulfilling his spiritual needs and desires without letting it affect his ability to look at the physical world rationally.
But this introduces an obligatory cognitive dissonance. Catholicism has some fairly specific belief requirements that are at odds with observed reality.
Your implication is that Catholicism is entertainment and entertainment alone.
There is no cognitive dissonance in enjoying My Little Pony, as it is understood to be entirely fictional. Belief that aspects of My Little Pony are real, e.g., that Celestia actually controls our Sun, would induce cognitive dissonance in the same way that the supernatural beliefs of the Catholic church do. Further, while My Little Pony includes dissonance within its own context (as virtually all fiction does), the total lack of contextual overlap between this fiction and observed reality precludes actual cognitive dissonance as it relates to the real world.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare the two unless you actually do wish to imply that Catholicism's beliefs are wholly fictitious.
If there's cognitive dissonance, and the scientist doesn't mind it, who cares? It's not bothering him, and it's not clearly not affecting his work.
But it implies directly that the person both recognizes the impossibility of a belief while simultaneously choosing to believe in it anyway. Not hope for, wish for, or contemplate, but actually believe. It's a high order of hypocrisy. They must either lie to themselves or lie to others at all times, or else must be ignorant of the nature of their dissonance.
Hypocrisy that has absolutely no impact on others or the validity of his work provided he is not proselytizing.
Utlimately, the religious beliefs of people are entirely unimportant and not worth my time or consideration. People who move into the realm of trying to convert me or telling me I am doomed/damned/etc. are just written off as crazy and ignored.
Not at all. If a given conjecture can be challenged by science, then certainly we must reject that conjecture when science fails to uphold it. However, a strictly faith-based belief cannot be challenged by science, because it is not based in logic.
The man can be an agnostic theist and still be a scientist with no dissonance at all.
If he wants to be gnostic in his theism, then we can rip him to shreds.
EDIT: To put it another way, science doesn't give a shit about anything until it enters the arena of gnosticism.
If there's cognitive dissonance, and the scientist doesn't mind it, who cares? It's not bothering him, and it's not clearly not affecting his work.
But it implies directly that the person both recognizes the impossibility of a belief while simultaneously choosing to believe in it anyway. Not hope for, wish for, or contemplate, but actually believe. It's a high order of hypocrisy. They must either lie to themselves or lie to others at all times, or else must be ignorant of the nature of their dissonance.
Of course, it also brings up the issue of just what it means to be a "devout" Catholic. I've never spoken to Dr. Miller nor read an interview about the exact nature of his personal faith and the extent of his devotion, which as far as I know, only consists of being a professed "devout Catholic," a regular church goer, undergoing the various rituals, and believing in a supreme being and an afterlife (which may not be that uncommon -- many Catholics, despite being loyal church goers, do not necessary believe in every little bit of Catholic doctrine). Given how the existence of a supreme being and afterlife can neither be proven nor disproven via the scientific method (yeah, yeah, this is the old "invisible pink unicorn" debate, no need to bring it up again here), believing in these items is harmless. Now if Dr. Miller personally believes in something that can be and has been proven to disagree with observed reality, then there is a problem here -- one that he may be able to rectify somehow in his thought processes, but a problem nonetheless. At the very least, evolutionary biology, his area of expertise, does not completely disagree with modern Catholic doctrine, which more or less explicitly states "evolution as described by biologists is God's method of creating life."
At the very least, evolutionary biology, his area of expertise, does not completely disagree with modern Catholic doctrine, which more or less explicitly states "evolution as described by biologists is God's method of creating life."
I believe the Pope just made a speech declaring this.
However, a strictly faith-based belief cannot be challenged by science, because it is not based in logic.
But Catholicism makes specific requirements on reality. Exorcism is a real part of the Catholic faith to this day. If one does not believe in it, then is not fully Catholic.
Despite this, there is no evidence of any efficacy of exorcism, nor any demonstration of the underlying claimed causes or effects. There is simultaneously observable evidence of the causes of symptoms described in Catholic doctrine as possibly requiring exorcism.
Given how the existence of a supreme being and afterlife can neither be proven nor disproven via the scientific method (yeah, yeah, this is the old "invisible pink unicorn" debate, no need to bring it up again here),
There is the separate problem that there is actual evidence against Christianity, primarily in the historical and secular origins of the faith and the lack of any real historicity of Jesus. It's not simply a situation where no evidence can exist: it's a situation where there is no evidence for and simultaneously is evidence against, making the believe more inherently falsifiable from any reasonably objective position than a "pink unicorn" belief in a vacuum.
Exorcism is a real part of the Catholic faith to this day. If one does not believe in it, then is not fully Catholic.
So is trans-substantiation, but most practicing Catholics don't actually believe in it. They just go with it because whatever.
You're technically correct - they're not fully Catholic. Y'know what, I'm not fully Scandinavian. Shall I refrain from identifying as such? Or maybe I'm not a real gamer because I also like playing Diablo sometimes.
You're making a no true Scotsman. People identify as a given denomination primarily for social reasons, not because of the specific tenets of faith.
You're making a no true Scotsman. People identify as a given denomination primarily for social reasons, not because of the specific tenets of faith.
Yes, and in that case, they are Catholics as far as they believe and most of those around them believe, but not as far as the church believes per its own definition of Catholism. It's not a "no true Scotsman" if you use Scotsman's own definition against him.
You're technically correct - they're not fully Catholic. Y'know what, I'm not fully Scandinavian. Shall I refrain from identifying as such?
Is there an organization called Scandinavians that has a specific, detailed set of doctrine, rules, and definitions, nevermind a hierarchy and canonical laws, to which you wish to claim to be a member? I can claim all day that I'm a Freemason, but the Freemasons wouldn't recognize me as such: I don't meet their requirements. If I make up my own requirements, it's not the same organization, just as if I add a rule to Monopoly, it's no longer Monopoly.
There is the separate problem that there is actual evidence against Christianity
OK, hang on. The thing about evidence is that it has to address specific claims. Specific claims. And the specificity of those claims limits the scope of the conclusions you can draw.
You can't just disprove "Christianity" in one fell swoop. There are a lot of claims in there, a few of which aren't really testable.
And there's always the option of saying, "All of that is God." We can make religious people jump out of the gnostic arena, but that's it. Gnostic atheism is an untenable position.
but not as far as the church believes per its own definition of Catholism
And here you are mistaken. The most central doctrine of any Christian faith is "believe in God and you are welcome." There is a degree of importance placed on the elements within the definition, which is completely subjective and not at all dogmatic.
Fuel for thought. Is Catholicism inherently gnostic?
Not when I learned about it. It used to be, but modern preaching is decidedly agnostic in its theism.
You can't just disprove "Christianity" in one fell swoop. There are a lot of claims in there, a few of which aren't really testable.
There is practically no evidence that Jesus ever existed. There is evidence that he is a fabrication. Most christian sects specifically believe that this specific man existed. Many go further and both specifically and literally believe he rose from the dead.
Gnostic atheism in a universal sense is. But gnostic anti-catholicism isn't. There is a secular history of the church that can be studied, and secular origins can be argued effectively while other origins present little or no evidence. It is reasonable to make a gnostic claim against a specific sect's set of beliefs, but unreasonable to make a gnostic claim about the possibility of other beliefs or a generic unspecified set of beliefs.
Practically, from a pragmatic, real-world, non-philosophical sense, gnostic and agnostic claims against almost all theology are reasonable. Going deeper is interesting but largely irrelevant to real life (as far as my solipsistic existence allows...). For all intents and purposes, a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist have the same outward beliefs, even though their philosophical underpinnings are diametrically opposed.
There ya go. You can take down the organization around the beliefs all you want. The organization isn't actually central to the faith; it's just a convenient vector.
Many go further and both specifically and literally believe he rose from the dead.
Many, but not all. I don't even think most literally believe it. The vast majority of Catholics with which I interacted - even some of my teachers and many priests I know - contend that the story is not literally true, but instead contend that the entire life of Jesus is a metaphor for your own journey with God. I've heard them say, "There were many prophets around that time. This one is the one that had the greatest impact. That's why he's the Messiah."
Weasly? Sure as shit. But we can't do anything about it. No logic can touch that. As I've said, the best we can do is force them to admit that any religion is really just applied philosophy.
And that's within Catholicism. Granted, I didn't go to an orthodox church. Orthodox Catholics are another ball of wax. But I've met many a progressive Catholic who are little different than many of the more progressive Protestant movements.
The most central doctrine of any Christian faith is "believe in God and you are welcome."
Not true. Theologians weep.
The basic underlying doctrine of all Christianty is that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, the son of God. Virtually all sects of Christianity follow the core Creeds, which introduce several specific gnostic beliefs. Branches of Christianity that reject these are very recent in any substantial numbers and, aside from fairly clear secular origins deviated from the core faith as it was originally known, are arguably not Christian.
Every "mainstream" sect follows most of the Creeds to a large degree.
But I've met many a progressive Catholic who are little different than many of the more progressive Protestant movements.
Thus the rub. Most Christians are not "Christians" by even their own definitions, and at best are agnostic theists or "soft" theists, carefully avoiding the Creeds that found the core of their nominal faith. That brand of Christianity is, in my mind, largely harmless, and is indeed impossible to truly argue against per all of your valid points.
But, anyone who claims to be Catholic either:
1. Literally believes in the Creeds and doctrine of the Catholic Church. or 2. Is not technically a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
I choose my words very carefully here. I am also simultaneously surprised at how much I remember from Catholic school.
2. Is not technically a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
I agree with part I, but not part II, of that statement. The fact that the Catholic church does not excommunicate those who do not fully believe the tenets of, say, The Apostle's Creed (which I can recite in my sleep to this day) is an indication of an acceptance of that interpretation.
The other thing is that it's impossible to prove whether or not they really believe in it. And even if you falter in that belief, you just confess and you're fine.
I've recited plenty of shit during a mass without it necessarily ringing true. The priests only listen for your response. It's a ritual, and there's no way for the priest to verify what you're thinking when you say it.
The Catholic church can evolve. The Pope is infallible, remember, so anything he says is the absolute word of God. If the Pope gets up and says, "Jesus was just some dude," then the church moves away from that part of the creed.
So maybe they'll stop being so Catholic one of these days. Good. Let them turn into a more progressive entity.
Many, but not all. I don't even think most literally believe it. The vast majority of Catholics with which I interacted - even some of my teachers and many priests I know - contend that the story is not literally true, but instead contend that the entire life of Jesus is a metaphor for your own journey with God. I've heard them say, "There were many prophets around that time. This one is the one that had the greatest impact. That's why he's the Messiah."
Weasly? Sure as shit. But we can't do anything about it. No logic can touch that. As I've said, the best we can do is force them to admit that any religion is really just applied philosophy.
And that's within Catholicism. Granted, I didn't go to an orthodox church. Orthodox Catholics are another ball of wax. But I've met many a progressive Catholic who are little different than many of the more progressive Protestant movements.
And there you go. If you declare that the beliefs of your religion should be taken metaphorically instead of literally, it gives you a lot more leeway. For example, while as Rym said there is historical evidence disproving the existence of an individual named Jesus who was the Messiah, there is also a lot of historical evidence that it was a time full of Messianic prophets and teachers. While "Jesus" may not have existed, he could be an amalgamation of one or many of the Messianic prophets running around in the Middle East at that time. Yes, this disproves the existence of the literal Jesus, but not the metaphorical Jesus.
That's the thing about most real world Catholics -- despite what the Church says one should believe, there is a huge range in what most Catholics actually believe. Hell, I still consider myself "Catholic" despite my personal beliefs being on the agnostic/atheistic side (yeah, I waffle a tad -- old habits/superstitions die hard sometimes). I had a Catholic wedding, spend time with family during Catholic holidays, will have Catholic baptisms for my children, should I have any, and would prefer to have a Catholic funeral when my time comes. This is despite not believing in the core beliefs of the Church. While my beliefs aren't necessarily "Catholic," I still have a social/cultural tie to the Church that I have no real desire to shake off.
Comments
The best example I can think of is Dr. Kenneth Miller. He's a Stephen J. Gould award winning evolutionary biology professor at Brown University. He often tours the country testifying in court cases against creationism and intelligent design. He's certainly much smarter than any of us. He also happens to be a devout Catholic. He is definitely someone who can separate using religion for fulfilling his spiritual needs and desires without letting it affect his ability to look at the physical world rationally. Of course, it helps his case that much of modern Catholic theology states that you have to take much, if not all, of the Bible as metaphor instead of literal truth.
Wow. Just wow.
There is no cognitive dissonance in enjoying My Little Pony, as it is understood to be entirely fictional. Belief that aspects of My Little Pony are real, e.g., that Celestia actually controls our Sun, would induce cognitive dissonance in the same way that the supernatural beliefs of the Catholic church do. Further, while My Little Pony includes dissonance within its own context (as virtually all fiction does), the total lack of contextual overlap between this fiction and observed reality precludes actual cognitive dissonance as it relates to the real world.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare the two unless you actually do wish to imply that Catholicism's beliefs are wholly fictitious.
Seriously, Ben Stien, just piss off you illiterate mudfucker.
Utlimately, the religious beliefs of people are entirely unimportant and not worth my time or consideration. People who move into the realm of trying to convert me or telling me I am doomed/damned/etc. are just written off as crazy and ignored.
The man can be an agnostic theist and still be a scientist with no dissonance at all.
If he wants to be gnostic in his theism, then we can rip him to shreds.
EDIT: To put it another way, science doesn't give a shit about anything until it enters the arena of gnosticism.
Despite this, there is no evidence of any efficacy of exorcism, nor any demonstration of the underlying claimed causes or effects. There is simultaneously observable evidence of the causes of symptoms described in Catholic doctrine as possibly requiring exorcism.
You're technically correct - they're not fully Catholic. Y'know what, I'm not fully Scandinavian. Shall I refrain from identifying as such? Or maybe I'm not a real gamer because I also like playing Diablo sometimes.
You're making a no true Scotsman. People identify as a given denomination primarily for social reasons, not because of the specific tenets of faith.
You can't just disprove "Christianity" in one fell swoop. There are a lot of claims in there, a few of which aren't really testable.
And there's always the option of saying, "All of that is God." We can make religious people jump out of the gnostic arena, but that's it. Gnostic atheism is an untenable position. And here you are mistaken. The most central doctrine of any Christian faith is "believe in God and you are welcome." There is a degree of importance placed on the elements within the definition, which is completely subjective and not at all dogmatic. Not when I learned about it. It used to be, but modern preaching is decidedly agnostic in its theism.
Practically, from a pragmatic, real-world, non-philosophical sense, gnostic and agnostic claims against almost all theology are reasonable. Going deeper is interesting but largely irrelevant to real life (as far as my solipsistic existence allows...). For all intents and purposes, a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist have the same outward beliefs, even though their philosophical underpinnings are diametrically opposed.
Weasly? Sure as shit. But we can't do anything about it. No logic can touch that. As I've said, the best we can do is force them to admit that any religion is really just applied philosophy.
And that's within Catholicism. Granted, I didn't go to an orthodox church. Orthodox Catholics are another ball of wax. But I've met many a progressive Catholic who are little different than many of the more progressive Protestant movements.
The basic underlying doctrine of all Christianty is that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, the son of God. Virtually all sects of Christianity follow the core Creeds, which introduce several specific gnostic beliefs. Branches of Christianity that reject these are very recent in any substantial numbers and, aside from fairly clear secular origins deviated from the core faith as it was originally known, are arguably not Christian.
Every "mainstream" sect follows most of the Creeds to a large degree.
But, anyone who claims to be Catholic either:
1. Literally believes in the Creeds and doctrine of the Catholic Church.
or
2. Is not technically a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
I choose my words very carefully here. I am also simultaneously surprised at how much I remember from Catholic school.
The other thing is that it's impossible to prove whether or not they really believe in it. And even if you falter in that belief, you just confess and you're fine.
I've recited plenty of shit during a mass without it necessarily ringing true. The priests only listen for your response. It's a ritual, and there's no way for the priest to verify what you're thinking when you say it.
The Catholic church can evolve. The Pope is infallible, remember, so anything he says is the absolute word of God. If the Pope gets up and says, "Jesus was just some dude," then the church moves away from that part of the creed.
So maybe they'll stop being so Catholic one of these days. Good. Let them turn into a more progressive entity.
And let's not forget this problem: "May the Force be with you." "And also with you."
That's the thing about most real world Catholics -- despite what the Church says one should believe, there is a huge range in what most Catholics actually believe. Hell, I still consider myself "Catholic" despite my personal beliefs being on the agnostic/atheistic side (yeah, I waffle a tad -- old habits/superstitions die hard sometimes). I had a Catholic wedding, spend time with family during Catholic holidays, will have Catholic baptisms for my children, should I have any, and would prefer to have a Catholic funeral when my time comes. This is despite not believing in the core beliefs of the Church. While my beliefs aren't necessarily "Catholic," I still have a social/cultural tie to the Church that I have no real desire to shake off.