When it comes to religion, I’m more interested in scientific and philosophical questions — Does God exist? Can science say anything about the supernatural? — than in sociological or political ones — Is religion good and or evil?, etc. So there was not much temptation to wade in on Pope Benedict’s recent troubles, or the wider issue of sex scandals in the Catholic Church.
Now, happily, that temptation has dipped to zero, since Phil Plait has done such a good job. Read the whole thing, as they say. Roughly, Phil notes that the Pope seems to be responsible for some very bad things; that he should be brought to justice for any wrong-doings; that there is some relevance to concerns of the skeptical community, insofar as the Church invokes supernatural explanations; but finally, that the strategy should not be simply one of proclaiming superiority and tarring religion as evil and demanding heads on plates. Catholics and other believers, whether we disagree with them or not, are human beings who will understandably be upset and troubled at the recent news. We don’t help to convert them to atheism or naturalism or skepticism by shoving the shortcomings of their leaders in their faces in the midst of a crisis; reason and rational discourse should be more our style. It’s a nuanced argument, which means it’s guaranteed to be misunderstood and caricatured, since even God can’t control the natural impulses of the internet.
Let’s be clear: I want religion to vanish. I think that religious beliefs are wrong, and that the world would be a better place if everyone accepted the real world for what it is. And I believe that many of the actions of the Church when it comes to pedophilia certainly deserve the label “evil,” whatever one might think of the people who perpetrated them.
So the question is, how to bring about the rationalist utopia in which people’s actions are based on reason and reflection rather than faith and hierarchy? I agree with Phil’s answers, as I’ve argued in other contexts. One of the primary tenets of a rationalist philosophy should be that we should be especially skeptical about claims that we want to be true. Our personal preferences don’t have any effect on the truth, so we need to guard against confirmation bias and lazy acceptance of ideas that make us happy. One great example is the idea that we’re going to make the world a better and more rational place by telling everyone how much smarter we are than everyone else, and how evil and stupid our enemies are. The Pope’s recent actions, it seems clear, are some combination of evil and stupid. But now is just not the time for patting ourselves on the back. A lot of people have been deeply hurt, directly or indirectly, and we should be able to show just a modicum of restraint. Not giving up or keeping quiet, but picking our spots. After all, we don’t have to win by being obnoxious — we can win by being right.
Jr,
“When do you complain about Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao and Che and Fidel ?” makes little sense – how can you compare Che Guivarre (sic) to Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao? Why not add Chavez and Mussolini? You’re confusing the Left with sociopaths. Most leaders tend toward the later, so I guess it’s time to add Obama and Hitler. How little we learn.
Aleksandar Mikovic, Good comment. If science is viewed as a formal language based on empirical evidence then Godel’s proof asserts that science can make no consistent statements about anything not within this system. So science has nothing whatever to say about things outside the physical universe.
Regarding Tolstoy, apparently he was a significant influence on Ghandi, an influence that inspired the non-violent resistance of Indian independence and perhaps avoided a major holocaust. Tolstoy, of course, got it from those who based their morality on this issue on Matthew 5:39 as described in Tolstoy’s book “The Kingdom of God is Within You”.
Indian independence was hardly non-violent: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
For those who may be interested in an alternative view, P.Z. Myers is not at all a fan of Plait’s post:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/as_long_as_im_criticizing_my_a.php
Whatever one believes, it is a very nice thing to sit quietly in a beautiful large hall with ones neighbors once a week … listen to music, have stories told to you and participate in a known ritual – whatever that may be –
In my church the music is – well – there are no words for it … Anyway what is the harm in a few irrational thoughts.
The hubris of the humanists never ceases to entertain. No sooner do they denounce as anthropomorphic the faiths they eschew than they appeal to a faith of their own making: the church of orthodox science.
Humility all around would suit us all well.
If the ‘rationalists’ would be accepted as such, perhaps it would serve their cause to apply said ration to comprehending the religions of old rather than merely dismissing them in sophomoric haste. You never know what you might learn.
For example, even a superficial perusal of ‘religion’ reveals an enlightening, universal obsession with science: the creation of life, planets, stars, light, matter, even time itself. (Would that ‘science’ were so obsessed with understanding religion!) It’s just not worded in terms familiar to anyone at the NAS. But this knowledge does give one a tool for exposing the real frauds such as ‘Scientology’: No science. No ‘Xenu created matter’. Ergo: It’s a false religion, truly the product of human imagination. Like philosophy.
This is not to say that religion is free of human influences, especially by governments and rulers, seeking to usurp the authority inherit therein. But is this not also the classic complaint of the scientist? “Oh that mankind’s morality kept pace with his technology!”, wrote the author, bemoaning the fact, of course, that government, by sponsoring ‘science’, always seems to do so for their own imperialistic ends.
Face it. There is nothing about science any less superstitious or more noble than any other religion. You have your temples, your priesthood, your doctrines (many of which must be accepted on faith because there simply is no proof), your scandals, your saints, tribute, excommunication, and, soon, to hear you all expound ad nauseum, an inquisition.
When that day comes, as it sounds like you’re advocating, you’d better hope there’s no God.
Marcus,
No one who is skeptical can “comprehend” religion because when they think they have something to criticize (which will be pretty soon), the religious move the goalposts (“ooh but “god” is ineffable!”; “It was a metaphor!”; etc., etc., etc.). As soon as the critics get tired of dealing with such disingenuous excuses, the religious will go back to science-defying miracles and resurrections.
And:
Time to put down the tinfoil hat and pick up a book about science and its history. (A Brief History of Time is a pretty good one, it probably won’t even offend your religious sensibilities.) But start here.
Sean – stick to the science, and respect the heritage science owes to the Catholic Church (as any historian of science will tell you).
It is very clear from both Phil’s entry and your comments that you know very little about the situation, not least the causes of the abuse. Yes, the abuse of awful in the extreme, any suggestion of cover up is worse (if proven), but I suggest you read a bit more from the Catholic perspective and get a balanced view.
There are some superb posts on this timely subject, and I will not inject any more pseudo-intellectual philosophizing about this subject.
Dawkins has called for arresting the pope if his plane lands in the UK. I agree wholeheartedly.
Jesse Ventura has pointed out that the catholic church can be prosecuted under the
federal `RICO Laws’ in which its role in child abuse can be considered a form of racketeering.
Sure, Bill Maher’s `Religulous’ pokes fun at & demos the inherent absurdity in religon, but
its way past time for atheists to take the gloves off, & become leaders & standard bearers.
From Galilei’s time up to today, the crimes of the Vatican are part of history, and will continue to become so unless we say “Stop, Enough”.
Ian, why don’t you say what could possibly in the “catholic perspective” could ameliorate what the pope has done (or failed to do)? Is all the evidence, the despicable blaming of others and lameness of excuses by priests and cardinals and bishops, the documents, all a lie? What could possibly make it better, if not that the pope is completely innocent from the allegations and everyone else is lying?
And why don’t you say exactly what “heritage” science owes to the catholics? If you’re gonna play that game (which is idiotic anyway), then science owes much more to Greeks and Arabs. Oh, I get it. You mean that the scientists and freethinkers that got discovered and burned at the stake were the weak ones, thus the church let the strong prevail? Darwinian survival of the fittest!
So, in short, why don’t you speak clearly what exactly you mean, instead of throwing around disingenuous accusations of ignorance, and hope that no one will bother to look up those “historians” of science who will make your point for you?
@60 – first words preceeding ‘catholic perspective’ should answer your concern ‘Is all the evidence, the despicable blaming of others and lameness of excuses by priests and cardinals and bishops, the documents, all a lie?’
Second I find it interssting that no-one has commented on the causes of abuse – something the John Jay report did, hence my reference to the ‘catholic perspective’. Further to this you may also want to consult some Catholic-based commentary on this – http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/setting_the_record_straight/
Thirdly – Wis 11:21 (only found in Catholic scripture) did so much for science, far more than the Greeks or Arabs whose theology failed their scientific endevours. And given that I assume everyone reading this blog is capable of research I certainly do not ‘hope that no one will bother to look up those “historians” of science’, but just in case you are lacking … James Hannam and Fr Stanley Jaki for starters.
Fourthly, just in case you are still struggling for what the Church did for science … 35 Jesuits have their name on the moon (how did they get there?), Fathers of minerology, geology, military surgery, astrophysics, genetics, geodesy, cystallography, modern chemistry (and more) were all Catholics, and in the cases where these were priests … just think how the Church sponsored these investigations, surely fully paid up members of the Church (priests) could not do science if the Church opposed it. The units Volt, Coulomb and Amp all take their names from Catholics. Want someone more famous? – Fleming and Pasteur were Catholic. Cathedrals were built to study the night sky, I could go on, but heh you can research this stuff for yourself. Can’t you?
My point is to recognise the heritage from the Church (other heritages are available), and think about it beore people wish religion would vanish.
Finally, if Sean really wishes ‘religion to vanish’ then I suggest he starts by changing his name. Sean, taken from the Irish for John, means God’s beloved, which he is, but he doesn’t know it.
Again, more blanket statements and wild assumptions.
Your first point doesn’t say anything. You say “if proven”. Is that what you’re referring to? Please, clearly, do you think it is all a lie?
The second point makes no sense. The priest there is doing the honorable thing and apologizing. That’s what the pope and all others in position of power should have done, but now they also have to answer to the cover ups. An apology can’t let them off the hook anymore.
Care to explain how that passage, nay, that whole chapter, did anything for science? Or again, you thought no one would look it up?
Your fourth point, an exercise in pointless counting. Some scientists happened to be catholics, therefore science was made possible by catholicism? Are you for real?
Like Galileo, right? The catholics only allowed “science” that could be made compatible with their beliefs. And care to mention all those “fathers”?
By the way, do you wanna count how many of those scientists wouldn’t have done what they did if the Greeks didn’t start it all and the Arabs didn’t preserve and advance that information?
And what about counting Jews? Hmm a famous Jewish scientist… hmm…
Even if half your wild claims are actually true in any realistic sense, you’re cherry picking. Do you think the catholic church has never done anything to hamper scientific progress? If you think that, then this conversation is pretty much over, there’s no reasoning with you. If you think they did do some bad things, please list a couple of the ones you think are worst.
And one last question. What exactly could NOT be discovered if not for explicit religious (catholic in particular) dogma?
andyo,
I recommend these two interesting books:
“God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science”
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848310706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271696253&sr=1-1
“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/B001PTG3KG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271696283&sr=1-1
Also, don’t forget about all the charity work the Catholic Church does. To quote a recent NY Times article:
“Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty.”
Just out of curiosity, have you done anything charitable in the past week?
“This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives. ”
The Catholic Church (as well as other Christian Churches) reaches out to those who have been completely forgotten by society. In the 1800s, there was a priest by the name of Father Damien, who moved to a leper colony on the Hawaiian island of Molokai to care for them, and to give them something society never did: love. In the process, he contracted leprosy himself. Now, if that’s not dedication and love, I don’t know what is.
And from another NY Times article concerning Benedict:
“In the 1990s, it was Ratzinger who pushed for a full investigation of Hans Hermann Groer, the Vienna cardinal accused of pedophilia, only to have his efforts blocked in the Vatican. It was Ratzinger who persuaded John Paul, in 2001, to centralize the church’s haphazard system for handling sex abuse allegations in his office. It was Ratzinger who re-opened the long-dormant investigation into Maciel’s conduct in 2004, just days after John Paul II had honored the Legionaries in a Vatican ceremony. It was Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, who banished Maciel to a monastery and ordered a comprehensive inquiry into his order. So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up.
Has Benedict done enough to clean house and show contrition? Alas, no. Has his Vatican responded to the latest swirl of scandal with retrenchment, resentment, and an un-Christian dose of self-pity? Absolutely. Can this pontiff regain the kind of trust and admiration, for himself and for his office, that John Paul II enjoyed? Not a chance.
But as unlikely as it seems today, Benedict may yet deserve to be remembered as the better pope. “
By the way, the charitable works I mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg. I recommend that you look it up. Now, I’m not saying that you or an organization needs to be a religious one in order to do charitable works. But religious people and religious institutions tend to be the ones who feel that it is their duty to care for those less fortunate.
Let me add something else.
No matter what you think of religion, right or wrong, good or evil, religion gives people hope that they are something more than just a collection of atoms. Because if they are just a collection of particles and forces then, upon death, they cease to exist forever. Everything effectively ceases to exist for them. They are forever gone and never coming back. They forever feel/sense nothing, and they are nothing. Many people cannot possibly understand how that’s possible. It’s not that they are afraid of it, because you can’t be afraid of nothing, they just can’t wrap their minds around how it’s even possible. So religion can be used as a means of saying, “No. I am more than this. Something about me survives past death.” No matter how well you convince people to abandon religion, you cannot replace this feeling without an appeal to the supernatural.
Also, it would be unwise to get rid of religious institutions, leaving no replacement for all the charitable works done by religious institutions. I believe, and perhaps I am wrong, but religious institutions inspire people to go above and beyond to care and love for those who have been forgotten by society. If everyone of us were just a conglomeration of particles, and you cease to exist when you die, why would I go above and beyond to help people? I should just give money, get a good education, enjoy my own life, and care for my own family and friends, and screw everyone else. Giving money is enough. But if we knew of absolutely no cure for leprosy, who would live at a leper colony to care for and show compassion for those suffering from leprosy? You’d be hard-pressed to find something willing to do that who wasn’t religious. So if you get rid of religious institutions and somehow manage to convince people to stop believing, then you had better have a replacement for the kind of inspiration to go above and beyond to do works of extreme charity.
Victor: That is absolutely ridiculous. Do you think that Medecins Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders) consists of religious do-gooders? Do you really think that atheists won’t contribute to charities? Altruism isnt confined to the religious, and, I find, the religious often
do things for rather ignoble reasons of delusional personal gain in the hereafter.
Marcus: Science can be falsified. Religion cant. Ergo Science is NOT as superstitious as religion.
Saying black is white doesn’t make it so. This blog seems to be getting infested with religious
lice.
“Do you really think that atheists won’t contribute to charities?”
I’m not saying atheists won’t contribute to charities. Nor am I saying that there are no non-religious charitable organizations. All I’m saying is that a huge chunk of those organizations are religious ones. Many people get religiously inspired to do great acts of charity, like caring for people in leper colonies back when there was no cure in site and treating them as real people even if it meant contracting the disease themselves. What I’m saying is that religion has contributed a lot of good and still does. That’s all.
Also, Gordon, what do you mean by “religious do-gooders”. I sense a bit of hostility in your tone there. Why are you so hostile?
“I find, the religious often do things for rather ignoble reasons of delusional personal gain in the hereafter.” Sure that could be one reason, but I highly doubt it’s the ONLY reason. Perhaps there’s a second reason: a genuine care for a human being because he/she is something more than a collection of particles. True, I can care for someone just because if I were in their shoes, I would want to be cared for also. But, for religious people, there’s also the reason that the person they are helping is more than just a living body, but a spirit. Of course, these are just words, but I’m just trying to show you that there are simultaneously more (genuine) reasons than just “If I do good, I will get rewarded after I die.” At least the vast majority of Catholics and other Christians (the types of people I know best) are like that.
But Victor, human beings ARE just collection of “particles” ,just as consciousness is an emergent property of the structure and chemical/physical processes and software programming going on in the brain. “Spirit” is something that has never had any evidence for it and is part of the
supernatural myth-making of religions. “Spirit” is likely a brain-state produced by dopaminergic neurons and temporal lobe structures. Too many people use the word to mean
virtually anything—a la Humpty Dumpty-“Words mean what I want them to mean–you just have to pay them more.”
By “religious do-gooders”, I am talking about those folks who foist their religious views on those they are helping, and those who are banking credits in a non-existent Heaven, or avoiding a non-existent Hell by doing good deeds to curry favor with the God Who Isn’t.
I am somewhat hostile in detecting in you an irrational tenor that somehow atheists cant
be moral, or that because someone is religious, they are altruistic. In my experience, those who are rational can help others better than those who are deluded. Yes, some religious people are good and generous people, but their core beliefs are crazy.
Gordon,
I definitely don’t think that atheists cannot be moral or can’t give of themselves through charity. It would be silly for me to think that. I just know a lot of people who get propelled to doing good works for the less fortunate by their religion. If their faith inspires them to do such deeds, that’s great. Who knows, maybe if they weren’t raised in that faith, they wouldn’t be compelled to do great things. I’m not saying that non-religious people won’t. Just that the more reasons people have for doing great things for others, the better.
You’re right, “religious do-gooders” as you defined them shouldn’t be doing that. In my opinion, they should care for those and use those acts of charity as an example of what their faith means to them. They shouldn’t pressure the people they are helping to believe the same thing they do.
Yes, I do think many beliefs are crazy. But I wouldn’t use such a word as “deluded”. If there was hard evidence AGAINST their beliefs, yet they continue to believe, then I would say they are deluded.
Regarding the whole “spirit” think, I’m almost 100% sure that someday we will understand the brain so well that we can identify the processes that lead to everything we see in human behavior and thought. But I bet you that that won’t force people to give up some sort of belief/hope for an afterlife, because many people just don’t want to think that it is even possible to be forever gone after death. I think about that sometimes, and it’s not that I’m afraid of it, I just think it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever that I can be alive, conscious, aware, and interact with the universe for however many years, and then POOF, it’s all gone…pure nothing for the rest of eternity. That seems so wild to me, I think how can that even be possible. Maybe people use that, and will continue to use that as a springboard the existence of the supernatural and, ultimately to a particular religion. Who knows.
What about a *before* life ?
Actually, Andyo, I cut my teeth in, among others, the very halls of NASA, specifically Goddard, as well as the engineering headquarters of Daimler-Benz AG, after having studied at one of the professor’s own haunts: die technische Fachhochschule Esslingen.
But you’ve proved my point quite nicely, I think, by demonstrating that those who would here feign claim superior intellect exhibit the opposite, having done little or no reading themselves on a subject which certainly may be comprehended by any willing to invest the effort, while wont to unleash invective at those who have.
Hmm Marcus.
You have probably made the wildest claims here, and when challenged, you resort to an argument to (own!) authority to call me stupid (hey, that’s an ad hominem!). I think you’re breaking the logical fallacy density limit. Nobody cares about your “qualifications” if you’re not going to say anything worthwhile.
Victor, in the same way that you didn’t say atheists can’t do good, I didn’t say religious people can’t either. I of course agree, you don’t have to be religious to do good, nor you have to be atheist. Dogma in general (and religion in particular) though does make one powerful excuse to do awful things, and among all the other excuses, it is rather unique in that it makes the person doing it feel righteous.
About the “hope” that religion brings to people. I’m not sure if it can be separated from its truth claims which are for the most part clearly false. If so, then good, but if not, well one would have to choose between being intellectually honest or the comfort of delusion.
There’s also another problem with that. It’s a bit condescending to think that most people need this “crutch”, don’t you think? Maybe some do, but I’d bet most don’t.