Comments on: How to Save the Church: An Open Letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:13:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Seth Goldberg http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-152619 Seth Goldberg Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:09:30 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-152619 It troubles me to read this post. it seems that your perception of Catholicism is nothing more than the media's interpretation. To simply get rid of churches is nothing short of ridiculous. Just because you don't feel like getting up on a Sunday, does not mean we should eliminate the pinnacles of communities which bring people together and celebrate. I won't even address the other points becuase each one is justmore ridiculous the the next. It troubles me to read this post. it seems that your perception of Catholicism is nothing more than the media’s interpretation. To simply get rid of churches is nothing short of ridiculous. Just because you don’t feel like getting up on a Sunday, does not mean we should eliminate the pinnacles of communities which bring people together and celebrate.

I won’t even address the other points becuase each one is justmore ridiculous the the next.

]]> By: Richard Parker http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-959 Richard Parker Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:01:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-959 While I was reading Steve's article on-line, this popped up: http://www.totallycatholic.com/ Enough said regards Richard While I was reading Steve’s article on-line, this popped up:

http://www.totallycatholic.com/

Enough said

regards

Richard

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-673 Jason Godesky Thu, 12 May 2005 17:29:44 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-673 <blockquote>I got distracted by the logic argument but I did want to note that both of these examples REQUIRE an external universe for the demon or electrodes to exist within, even though my perceptions may not respond to that external universe the fact of my perceptions might still serve as evidence that such a universe exists.</blockquote> They're illustrations to point out one simple fact: you can't even be sure an external universe <em>exists</em>, much less that your perception of it has anything to do with its actual state. Science is built on a number of unprovable axioms: 1.) an external universe exists, 2.) it is observable, 3.) it is controlled by natural laws, and 4.) those laws can be observed and understood. I tend to believe in all of those axioms, but I can't prove any of them--any more than a Creationist can prove that G-d snapped the universe into being six billion years ago. We all have our axioms, it's impossible to live without them. But they can't be proven. And must of us--even those irrational religionists--tend to be relatively consistent within those axioms. Accept the axioms, and the rest makes sense; that goes for science as much as for religion. I'm not arguing that G-d exists or that this or that religion has it right; my argument is epistemological. I don't like the blanket rejection and scorn of all religion. Religion is universal among human societies, and has done us a lot of good in the past. When organized religion has been co-opted as an arm of civilization, it has done much harm in civilization's name, but these incidents--the Crusades, the Inquisition, holy wars and genocides every atheist knows by heart and rattle off like their very own Novena--have more to do with civilization than religion. Religion is just the excuse, and had it been lacking, any number of other excuses would have easily sufficed. These have to do with civilization; they have very little to do with religion, except to show that religion is part of culture, which hardly needs to be proved. <blockquote>If taken fully to the extreme of removing every 'thing' from the universe except my mind and positing that my perceptions reflect random events generated by that mind then, I think, we come to the questions: "What makes up that mind?" and "Where does that mind reside?" These questions seem to indicate either an external reality or a shortcoming in my ability to think that something can exist within itself. They also remind me of the question: What happened before there was time? Which at the very least seems to indicate a problem with the language.</blockquote> These questions are couched in the internal rules of the mind, so have no effect on anything outside of it. As a pantheist, my G-d is eternal--because time and space are properties of the universe, so the universe itself is necessarily outside of time. If time and space exist only as illusions of your perception, then there is no need for your mind to "be" anywhere, or any time. I agree, Humean skepticism is rarely useful except for idle speculation. This is the reality we are experiencing; dream world or no, I would say that since it appears to be relatively consistent, understanding it has merit. The one use I do occasionally trot this out for is humbling the uppity atheist. I hate missionaries, regardless of the religion they're preaching, whether it has one god, many, or none at all. I certainly respect atheism--I often get along with atheists better than the alternative--but I do insist they recognize it for what it is, and cut out the superiority complex to the rest of humanity. It's just so .... religious.

I got distracted by the logic argument but I did want to note that both of these examples REQUIRE an external universe for the demon or electrodes to exist within, even though my perceptions may not respond to that external universe the fact of my perceptions might still serve as evidence that such a universe exists.

They’re illustrations to point out one simple fact: you can’t even be sure an external universe exists, much less that your perception of it has anything to do with its actual state. Science is built on a number of unprovable axioms: 1.) an external universe exists, 2.) it is observable, 3.) it is controlled by natural laws, and 4.) those laws can be observed and understood.

I tend to believe in all of those axioms, but I can’t prove any of them–any more than a Creationist can prove that G-d snapped the universe into being six billion years ago. We all have our axioms, it’s impossible to live without them. But they can’t be proven. And must of us–even those irrational religionists–tend to be relatively consistent within those axioms. Accept the axioms, and the rest makes sense; that goes for science as much as for religion.

I’m not arguing that G-d exists or that this or that religion has it right; my argument is epistemological. I don’t like the blanket rejection and scorn of all religion. Religion is universal among human societies, and has done us a lot of good in the past. When organized religion has been co-opted as an arm of civilization, it has done much harm in civilization’s name, but these incidents–the Crusades, the Inquisition, holy wars and genocides every atheist knows by heart and rattle off like their very own Novena–have more to do with civilization than religion. Religion is just the excuse, and had it been lacking, any number of other excuses would have easily sufficed. These have to do with civilization; they have very little to do with religion, except to show that religion is part of culture, which hardly needs to be proved.

If taken fully to the extreme of removing every ‘thing’ from the universe except my mind and positing that my perceptions reflect random events generated by that mind then, I think, we come to the questions: “What makes up that mind?” and “Where does that mind reside?” These questions seem to indicate either an external reality or a shortcoming in my ability to think that something can exist within itself. They also remind me of the question: What happened before there was time? Which at the very least seems to indicate a problem with the language.

These questions are couched in the internal rules of the mind, so have no effect on anything outside of it. As a pantheist, my G-d is eternal–because time and space are properties of the universe, so the universe itself is necessarily outside of time. If time and space exist only as illusions of your perception, then there is no need for your mind to “be” anywhere, or any time.

I agree, Humean skepticism is rarely useful except for idle speculation. This is the reality we are experiencing; dream world or no, I would say that since it appears to be relatively consistent, understanding it has merit. The one use I do occasionally trot this out for is humbling the uppity atheist. I hate missionaries, regardless of the religion they’re preaching, whether it has one god, many, or none at all. I certainly respect atheism–I often get along with atheists better than the alternative–but I do insist they recognize it for what it is, and cut out the superiority complex to the rest of humanity. It’s just so …. religious.

]]> By: JimFive http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-672 JimFive Thu, 12 May 2005 15:17:54 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-672 <blockquote>And if Descartes was onto something with his "evil demon," what then? Or, to use the more modern version, what if you're just a brain in a jar being poked with electrodes? Stimulate the right nerve endings, you'll think you're really reading a comment on some blog. So if there's no actual reality beyond our perception, then our measurements of it are just more illusions and hallucinations in the same grand deception.</blockquote> I got distracted by the logic argument but I did want to note that both of these examples REQUIRE an external universe for the demon or electrodes to exist within, even though my perceptions may not respond to that external universe the fact of my perceptions might still serve as evidence that such a universe exists. If taken fully to the extreme of removing every 'thing' from the universe except my mind and positing that my perceptions reflect random events generated by that mind then, I think, we come to the questions: "What makes up that mind?" and "Where does that mind reside?" These questions seem to indicate either an external reality or a shortcoming in my ability to think that something can exist within itself. They also remind me of the question: What happened before there was time? Which at the very least seems to indicate a problem with the language. Anyway, I don't know where I want to go with this so I won't. Regards

And if Descartes was onto something with his “evil demon,” what then? Or, to use the more modern version, what if you’re just a brain in a jar being poked with electrodes? Stimulate the right nerve endings, you’ll think you’re really reading a comment on some blog. So if there’s no actual reality beyond our perception, then our measurements of it are just more illusions and hallucinations in the same grand deception.

I got distracted by the logic argument but I did want to note that both of these examples REQUIRE an external universe for the demon or electrodes to exist within, even though my perceptions may not respond to that external universe the fact of my perceptions might still serve as evidence that such a universe exists.
If taken fully to the extreme of removing every ‘thing’ from the universe except my mind and positing that my perceptions reflect random events generated by that mind then, I think, we come to the questions: “What makes up that mind?” and “Where does that mind reside?” These questions seem to indicate either an external reality or a shortcoming in my ability to think that something can exist within itself. They also remind me of the question: What happened before there was time? Which at the very least seems to indicate a problem with the language.
Anyway, I don’t know where I want to go with this so I won’t.

Regards

]]> By: Marco http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-671 Marco Thu, 12 May 2005 14:15:51 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-671 You know, I really wanted a reason for everyone in the world to stop wearing deodorant. Thanks! You know, I really wanted a reason for everyone in the world to stop wearing deodorant. Thanks!

]]> By: Mike Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-637 Mike Godesky Fri, 06 May 2005 20:10:35 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-637 I don't know, Roxy. You seem to do pretty well talking about this. In fact, I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, the western focus on dualism is a major problem here. In fact, I don't even know how we got onto the subject of whether or not God exists, because Jason didn't say anything about that. What he said was that religion isn't bad, which has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. But obviously, there are only two acceptable positions for a person to take in this debate, so if you say something good about religion, you must be saying that God exists, right? You'll notice that even here in this conversation one of the problems we keep running into is this assumption "God" must mean a Judeo-Christian god who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immortal, and so on and so forth. Usually this debate turns out to be not so much religion vs. atheism as much as Christianity vs. atheisim. It's unfortunate that this debate, like so many others, tends to often be constrained by what people have already decided the two sides should be. On a side note, The Philosophers' Magazine (the folks who brought you <a href="http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm" rel="nofollow">Battleground God</a>) has an interesting <a href="http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm" rel="nofollow">Do-It-Yourself Deity</a> exercise. I actually like this one a lot better than Battleground God, which I think suffers from some poorly worded questions. But this one is useful for looking at different ways of defining God and the implications of those definitions. I don’t know, Roxy. You seem to do pretty well talking about this. In fact, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Yes, the western focus on dualism is a major problem here. In fact, I don’t even know how we got onto the subject of whether or not God exists, because Jason didn’t say anything about that. What he said was that religion isn’t bad, which has nothing to do with whether or not it’s true. But obviously, there are only two acceptable positions for a person to take in this debate, so if you say something good about religion, you must be saying that God exists, right? You’ll notice that even here in this conversation one of the problems we keep running into is this assumption “God” must mean a Judeo-Christian god who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immortal, and so on and so forth. Usually this debate turns out to be not so much religion vs. atheism as much as Christianity vs. atheisim. It’s unfortunate that this debate, like so many others, tends to often be constrained by what people have already decided the two sides should be.

On a side note, The Philosophers’ Magazine (the folks who brought you Battleground God) has an interesting Do-It-Yourself Deity exercise. I actually like this one a lot better than Battleground God, which I think suffers from some poorly worded questions. But this one is useful for looking at different ways of defining God and the implications of those definitions.

]]> By: Raku http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-636 Raku Fri, 06 May 2005 18:19:50 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-636 I might be making a huge mistake jumping into a discussion of this intellectual level, but I've found my learning style usually involves jumping in and making huge mistakes. It's what I do best. That being said... It seems Western civilization (in particular?), including science and religion, loves to focus on absolutes and dualism. God exists or it doesn't. I believe in God or I don't. Humans are innately good or innately evil. Every object on this planet can be categorized. Etc, etc. I once had a conversation with a friend of mine about whether I believed in God. She wanted a yes-or-no response: Did I believe in God or no? In this case she was talking about a monotheist, Judeo-Xian type god. I replied that I had no doubt that the Christian god existed for Christians, but as I was not a Christian, it had no relation to my life whether it existed or not. It was interesting to see her reaction; she had never thought of it in that way before, but my answer was ultimately unsatisfying to her. My gods exist for me, someone else's gods exist for them. Giving up the assumption that we can know (and dictate) certain things for all groups can be a very difficult idea. I have been following this back-and-forthing with interest, because I've been in similar conversations before, and Mike and Jason are much better at responding than I was. Most of mine ended up with me saying, "Yeah, but- Yeah, but-....(expletive as brain implodes)" Also because 3 or 4 years ago I probably would have responded in much the same way as spike did. I might be making a huge mistake jumping into a discussion of this intellectual level, but I’ve found my learning style usually involves jumping in and making huge mistakes. It’s what I do best. That being said…

It seems Western civilization (in particular?), including science and religion, loves to focus on absolutes and dualism. God exists or it doesn’t. I believe in God or I don’t. Humans are innately good or innately evil. Every object on this planet can be categorized. Etc, etc. I once had a conversation with a friend of mine about whether I believed in God. She wanted a yes-or-no response: Did I believe in God or no? In this case she was talking about a monotheist, Judeo-Xian type god. I replied that I had no doubt that the Christian god existed for Christians, but as I was not a Christian, it had no relation to my life whether it existed or not. It was interesting to see her reaction; she had never thought of it in that way before, but my answer was ultimately unsatisfying to her. My gods exist for me, someone else’s gods exist for them. Giving up the assumption that we can know (and dictate) certain things for all groups can be a very difficult idea.

I have been following this back-and-forthing with interest, because I’ve been in similar conversations before, and Mike and Jason are much better at responding than I was. Most of mine ended up with me saying, “Yeah, but- Yeah, but-….(expletive as brain implodes)” Also because 3 or 4 years ago I probably would have responded in much the same way as spike did.

]]> By: Mike Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-614 Mike Godesky Tue, 03 May 2005 18:34:03 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-614 <em>As I said, an odd definition. Religion, as normally defined, involves belief in a god.</em> re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n. 1A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. All I can say is that your use of a dictionary definition of religion in a debate like this is simply adorable. But even your overly simplistic definition does not necessarily include a god. Note that a religion according to you could also be "a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," which doesn't necessarily include anything about God. <em>Invalid: Every Universe has a god Our universe is a universe Therefore God Exists</em> Except that in order for something to have a god, that god must exist. So if every universe has a god and our universe is a universe, then our universe has a god <em>and</em> that god exists. Unlike the argument that I gave, in which I was merely using "is" to define the concept of "God," your statement does assume God's existence. Anyway, as Jason pointed out, it's a simple syllogism. If you still don't get it, I don't know how else I can explain it to you. <em>I have no problem with someone defining God as whatever physical force triggered the Big Bang. As I understand it Deists pretty much do exactly that. However, you can not use that premise to prove that a physical force actually did trigger the big bang.</em> Well, keep in mind that we're beginning with the premise that everything has a cause. The problem with the Big Bang as a theory of creation is that it's NOT a theory of creation. All it tells us is <em>how</em> the universe was formed. But in order for the Big Bang to have happened there had to have already been stuff that existed to be big-banged. The question is where did that stuff come from? The Big Bang theory doesn't tell us that. As I said, an odd definition. Religion, as normally defined, involves belief in a god.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

All I can say is that your use of a dictionary definition of religion in a debate like this is simply adorable. But even your overly simplistic definition does not necessarily include a god. Note that a religion according to you could also be “a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader,” which doesn’t necessarily include anything about God.

Invalid:
Every Universe has a god
Our universe is a universe
Therefore God Exists

Except that in order for something to have a god, that god must exist. So if every universe has a god and our universe is a universe, then our universe has a god and that god exists. Unlike the argument that I gave, in which I was merely using “is” to define the concept of “God,” your statement does assume God’s existence.

Anyway, as Jason pointed out, it’s a simple syllogism. If you still don’t get it, I don’t know how else I can explain it to you.

I have no problem with someone defining God as whatever physical force triggered the Big Bang. As I understand it Deists pretty much do exactly that. However, you can not use that premise to prove that a physical force actually did trigger the big bang.

Well, keep in mind that we’re beginning with the premise that everything has a cause. The problem with the Big Bang as a theory of creation is that it’s NOT a theory of creation. All it tells us is how the universe was formed. But in order for the Big Bang to have happened there had to have already been stuff that existed to be big-banged. The question is where did that stuff come from? The Big Bang theory doesn’t tell us that.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-613 Jason Godesky Tue, 03 May 2005 14:49:11 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-613 No, that was one of the premises: Everything has a cause. Which he granted, may not be a sound premise. It's really a very simple syllogism. No, that was one of the premises: Everything has a cause. Which he granted, may not be a sound premise. It’s really a very simple syllogism.

]]> By: JimFive http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-612 JimFive Tue, 03 May 2005 14:31:09 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/#comment-612 <blockquote>The Tao is a principle, not a god. And Buddha is certainly not a god. So, to be clear, you're saying that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions.</blockquote> I have no problem with that. However, later you say that Taoists and Buddhists do have gods. <blockquote>Premise: Every A has a B. C is an A. Therefore, C has a B. </blockquote> Except that what he is saying is: Every A has a B C is an A Therefore B exists. Invalid: Every Universe has a god Our universe is a universe Therefore God Exists Valid (Though possibly unsound): Every Universe has a god Our universe is a universe Therefore our universe has a god I have no problem with someone defining God as whatever physical force triggered the Big Bang. As I understand it Deists pretty much do exactly that. However, you can not use that premise to prove that a physical force actually did trigger the big bang.

The Tao is a principle, not a god. And Buddha is certainly not a god. So, to be clear, you’re saying that Taoism and Buddhism are not religions.

I have no problem with that. However, later you say that Taoists and Buddhists do have gods.

Premise: Every A has a B.
C is an A.
Therefore, C has a B.

Except that what he is saying is:

Every A has a B
C is an A
Therefore B exists.

Invalid:
Every Universe has a god
Our universe is a universe
Therefore God Exists

Valid (Though possibly unsound):
Every Universe has a god
Our universe is a universe
Therefore our universe has a god

I have no problem with someone defining God as whatever physical force triggered the Big Bang. As I understand it Deists pretty much do exactly that. However, you can not use that premise to prove that a physical force actually did trigger the big bang.

]]>