Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Faith and Reason are not incompaibile 44
But Faith and Hedonism are incompatible. Faith and Anarchy are incompatible.
Three different Catholic blogs have pounded this into my head the last couple of days.
The first- a blog that has been invaded in the combox by an ex-Catholic New Atheist who claims that he's scared to come out to friends and family as an atheist, made the startling claim yesterday that many New Atheists are only Atheists because they can't tolerate the idea of a being telling them what to do, and thus, reject the idea of a God-given morality not as much because of the God part, but because of the morality part. The resident atheist-in-the-closet actually confirmed the theory rather than arguing against it, saying that he thinks God doesn't exist because the Church teaches against pre-marital sex and contraception.
In a second blog, this one from a Catholic convert from Atheism, I was presented with the "Good without God" crowd, to which I responded pretty much my standard way- that "Good without God" requires a definition of Good that I define as evil- particularly when it comes to the business and sexual practices of that crowd.
Finally, came a funny joke: A libertarian atheist says to his friend "I refuse to do anything anybody tells me is good for me. Look at this bottle of breath spray. It says on the side "Do not spray in eyes". So I'm going to do the opposite." As the libertarian begins to scream in pain- his friend says "They tried to warn you!"
It occurs to me that Catholic teaching, based initially on revelation but refined over the centuries by the largest, most scientific study of human behavior and culture ever attempted, is kind of like those Nanny State warnings on the sides of products. Do you really need to be told NOT to use the hair dryer in the shower? With the average lifespan of homosexuals even in committed relationships being 20 years less than heterosexuals, do you really need to be told that being homosexual is a bad idea? With the divorce level at 75% and now a new study showing that divorce creates lifelong problems for male children, is it really that hard to understand that MAYBE doing the hard work of staying faithful and working problems out is a good thing?
Apparently, some people do- and that's why the Church has a billion members.
I'm convinced... (Score:2)
... that the morality part drives the vast majority of people who reject God.
Of course, I'm also sure there are many honest atheists who are True Believers... er, whatever, but most people simply don't think about these things any more deeply than what you can get from a bumper sticker, because most people don't think about almost everything more deeply than what you can get from a bumper sticker.
Life is complicated and you have to be really passionate about something to put that kind of effort into it.
Re: (Score:2)
... and unfortunately that also goes for a majority of the billion you mentioned who pick and choose which Church teachings they believe and ignore the others.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. I'm amazed that Pope Francis knows so little of North American politics that he wouldn't refuse Biden and Pelosi communion- because he *does* refuse President Christine Kirchner communion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wondered about that as well. I would like to see those two incredibly smug, but morally bankrupt people get some recognition from someone in authority of the Church that because of their public stands, they cannot be in good standing with the Church. It is infuriating that the U.S,. Bishops seem completely indifferent to these extremely high-ranking politicians who flout the most basic and important Catholic doctrines yet wear being Catholic as a badge of honor.
You know, years ago, /. would let you
Re: (Score:2)
It's like God's saying: "Imma tell you the easy way. You can increase your difficulty level in life from there."
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I haven't encountered any piece of common sense that isn't viewed as completely absurd by some subset of people.
Re: (Score:2)
But do judge the tree by the fruit obtained, which has seeds when proper, and can produce a fresh orchard.
Re: (Score:1)
But do judge the tree by the fruit obtained, which has seeds when proper, and can produce a fresh orchard.
Wow, you must really hate infertile couples that are unable to have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
In a programming language, this would be some kind of "variable not in scope" error. Don't know the rhetorical term that applies.
Re: (Score:1)
You are judging people, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Your 'morals' (defined variables) do not apply universally, and thus make the argument utterly useless. Let nature (god) be the judge of people who act consensually in perfectly good conscious. 'Teleological' cannot be reduced to a singular purpose. You are just trying to squeeze it into your defined purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
"You are judging people, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong"
Or at least so says the people who think that sex done wrong is good.
Re: (Score:1)
Done wrong? Heh, I suppose, if it results in physical injury, but that can happen even if done 'right', and either way, it still gives no one the right to regulate it outside ensuring it remains consensual.
Re: (Score:2)
Done wrong=no child. Done right takes 18-25 years and you end up with a new generation, and the species continues.
Of course, to understand that, you can't be a moral relativist. I suppose that to a moral relativist, there can never be any wrong in anything.
Re: (Score:1)
Looking at the numbers, it appears that the species is thriving.
The claim that sex serves a singular purpose is wrong. Man's arrogant believe that he is 'above' or separate from nature or superior to any other man is wrong. But in nature itself there is no right or wrong. There is only strength and weakness. Strength always prevails as a matter of plain physics. And so far these are still the general operating principles of man in all his institutions. We are still in a very dark age, though some will have
Re: (Score:2)
"Looking at the numbers, it appears that the species is thriving."
How is a species where 75% of the individual members will never breed "thriving"?
"The claim that sex serves a singular purpose is wrong."
Don't just say it, PROVE IT. Prove that the species can continue if we replace sex with mere recreation and contraception.
"The only people making war on others are the absolutists (religious, economic, etc) with their (self)righteousness enforced by heavy weaponry. "Live and let live" is much closer to spir
Re: (Score:1)
Don't just say it, PROVE IT.
I can easily flip that right back at you. And who's talking about 'replacement'? That's absurd.
How is a species where 75% of the individual members will never breed "thriving"?
I wouldn't know where you dredged that up, but it makes no sense. We have 7 billion, and the growth rate is still accelerating, unless your complaint is with the rich countries. All things considered, we can afford to slow down a little.
Are you saying that once a couple has a 'sufficient' number of children
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594036411 [amazon.com], some of us actually bother to do research instead of just repeating malthusian myths.
God is not human biology, but I'm not surprised that you don't know that either, because you've very carefully constructed your life to avoid data that goes contrary to your "freedom".
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, your 'data' is a creation of a known corrupt institution for its sole benefit. If you want to be all technical about it, I am still Catholic with twelve years of their 'data' under my belt (so to speak). So, you can pretend I don't know what I'm talking about if that's what suits you.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite clear that you've never delved any deeper into Catholicism than just what they teach to school children.
Just as it is quite clear that you've just decided to reject data for no good reason other than your own personal bigotry at who created the data.
Re: (Score:1)
Provide the same data from at least one disinterested party, and I'll consider it. Otherwise it's just another conspiracy theory promulgated by a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like any of your data actually comes from disinterested parties- including yourself. You readily admit that your only proof that God doesn't exist is you don't like being told what to do.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I don't care for those who use their deity to justify their authority, which comes out the end of a gun. The only difference between you and anybody else are the stars on your bellies [win-vector.com]. The 'moral' high ground is held by none.
Re: (Score:2)
So you might as well just go out and rob your neighbor, since there's no such thing as morality, right?
Re: (Score:1)
No, why? I don't need to be told or forced to respect my neighbor. Do you? That sounds a personal problem. Being nice can be rewarding and give me pleasure on its own. I find those who need to be whipped into doing so to be kind of kinky. It's the 'moralists' who are robbing their neighbors, of simple pleasures that nobody has a right to interfere with. You need to learn to leave people alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should you respect your neighbor, if you haven't been told to? It's easily better for you to be nasty than nice.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong again. I feel better being nice, but it is true that your society and economic system reward nastiness more. If you provoke, foster violence, vengeance, greed, envy, etc., it is easier to rationalize the necessity of control. It's the psychopaths' way to riches. There can be no doubt that man's desire for authority is natural, but in terms of becoming human, it is pathological. Humanity and authority are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, you say that as an authority on the subject.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, merely an observation that water is wet.
RE: Your previous post that I forgot to mention;
Why should you respect your neighbor, if you haven't been told to? It's easily better for you to be nasty than nice.
This implies a certain obligation to act badly absent man's authority dictating otherwise. That's rather odd. Is there no free choice? Am I obligated to take the so-called 'easy way out' if not forced to do otherwise? Is respecting your neighbor so difficult for you that you need a gun pointed to your
Re: (Score:2)
Absent God's power, free choice is an illusion. That has been proven by quantum mechanics. The easy way out is the law of the jungle- the law that exists in the absence of all other law. My lust for order and conformity is recognition that without order and conformity, only the strong will be allowed to survive.
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely what man's authority is sustaining, the law of the jungle. If there is another authority outside the physical, it is not for man to impose. It is by his free choice whether to live by them or not, through example. That means introspection, as opposed to judgement of others, and self discipline, not by hammering on his environment and the other people in it.
You are still trying to personify your god and projecting your (or rather your church's) image an
Re: (Score:2)
"The only set of keys to the pearly gates"- well, if you understood what the pearly gates were, you'd know that isn't even close to true. It is only by observation and experimentation, started by a dose of revelation, that we have those keys at all, but of course, you're not one to look at observation and experimentation, just at the surface end result.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you know what? Ultimately, results are all that matter. Intent is bullshit, and can never be proven anyway. It has to be deduced from the results. Regarding your institution, its history has been remarkably consistent, and goes a long way to prove that only the corrupt have any desire for authority, and for obvious reasons, maybe too obvious for some to see, but there's not much I can do about that. What can be said to one who considers introspection to be shallow and superfluous, and that anything 'g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Woof!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm borderline infertile. It is more that I pity such people- and realize that I've failed at sex done properly all but once.
Re: (Score:2)
That is also a completely incorrect understanding of what the Bible is saying. But it's pretty common among fundamentalist Christians who never actually read the Bible beyond the 30 or so memory verses their favorite preacher obsesses over.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, genocide has pretty much been banned in Catholic theology since St. Augustine of Hippo claimed that Christ required just war to be defined by 4 main points:
1. Don't invade anybody
2. Only fight against people who invade you
3. Don't take revenge against your enemies
4. Use methods and weapons that do as much damage to you as your enemy
I can't say the same for whatever irrational person told you that same sex attraction automatically sends you to hell (it doesn't, it's what you DO with that same sex a
moof (Score:1)
And this is why all the stuff earlier in that same paragraph is all wrong. He's not rejecting morality, he's only rejecting God's morality, because he likes man's better.
And atheists are not anarchists; not wanting to be told what to do is almost always entirely divorced in practice from not wanting others to be told what to do. Rather, they want what they want to do to be imposed on others, and then it's no imp
Re: (Score:1)
Rather, they want what they want to do to be imposed on others
You couldn't be more wrong, and is simply projection on your part. Man is simply is always trying to impose his own morality on others by slapping his god's name on it. Nobody (that I approve of. That was a preemptive shhhh, because I know how your black and white thinking works. e.g. If you're not a republican, then you're a democrat) is trying to force you to be atheist, only that you keep your religion out of our law books. What you do in your
Re: (Score:2)
So, you do not approve of the Freedom From Religion Foundation?
Re: (Score:1)
Don't know who they are, but if their only aim is to keep 'sharia' (or any religious law out of our legislation), it sounds like a good idea. One thing is that I recognize that all religious institutions are a business that deserve no special privileges, like reduced or taxes, etc. If this group is trying to outlaw the private practice of religious worship, then they are nuts. If people want to gather in the park and pray, go for it, but I don't want that kind of indoctrination with a captive audience in pu
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, their purpose is far more than that- their purpose is to lock religion in the churches- and eliminate religious artwork from all buildings open to the public regardless of who owns the building.
The FRF would be extremely against people gathering in a park to pray. And since when are public schools a "captive audience"? You can always choose to homeschool.
Re: (Score:1)
If what you say about FRF is true, then my feelings should be more than obvious. We have nothing more than completing business interests here. Figures...
You can always choose to homeschool.
A better place to practice your religion you'll never find. Though a good argument can be made for congregating with others of the same beliefs.