How to Save the Church: An Open Letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
by Steve ThomasConsidering I haven’t been a practicing Catholic in years, it came as a surprise when I felt a twinge of sadness at Pope John Paul II’s death. Even more shocking was the mild awe I felt upon seeing Pope Benedict XVI, especially since I—hated—his alter-ego, Cardinal Ratzinger.
This can mean only one thing: there’s still Catholic in me. And therefore I have a duty to help out the new Pope in this his time of need. Therefore, brought to you for the first time here on Anthropik, is my 5-Point Plan to save the Catholic Church.
(You might want to print this one out and save it, kids. You’ll want it to show your grandchildren one day.)
Point 1: Sex. We all do it. And none of us are dumb enough to obey the Papal stricture against condoms—except in places like Central Africa where they aren’t readily available and the people actually need them to keep from, you know, dying.
Solution: From now on, Catholics, including priests and monks and nuns, are allowed to have sex any time they want, with whomever they feel like, provided the partner is a consenting adult (not, you know, a little boy).
Moreover, the Church will glorify this most glorious of human acts by incorporating it into the Easter mass. More on that later.
Point 2: Churches. Joseph Campbell used to tell a story about a Missionary and a jungle native. The native said: “Your god keeps himself shut up in a house as if he were old and infirm. Ours is in the forest and in the field and in the mountains when the rains come.� The native was right. The missionary was an ass.
Solution: All Churches will be immediately sold, and the proceeds will be used to buy threatened wild habitats. These places will now be the locations of worship, where the Holy Spirit will be seen in the workings of nature. Worship, by the way, will now include removing invasive species, building low-maintenance trails, and husbanding threatened/endangered plant and animal species.
Point 3: The Trinity: Okay, so we’ve got three gods which are actually one God, and all of them have penises. There is one woman who’s sort of a god—and Catholics are much better to her than protestants, of course—but the only womanly qualities she embodies are motherhood and virginity (i.e., the noble attributes of sexual submission).
Solution: Elevate Mary to the same status held by God the Father. Find a daughter, representing non-motherly feminine qualities. Get rid of all this virgin shit; God and Mary had sex at Easter (an event to be reenacted by the high priest and priestess) and Jesus, the Son/the Sun, was born on the night of the Winter Solstice to bring light back into the world.
Since Jesus is the Sun, and has always been rather Apollonian, perhaps the Daughter of God can be modeled on Diana (except, again, without the virginity). The Holy Spirit will now be a pantheistic deity, seen as the Divine Fire in every living and nonliving being.
Point 4: The Hierarchy. What does Rome know about Pittsburgh? Not a damn thing. Second of all, in the individual Parishes we have the basis for a very good and effective system of wealth-redistribution.
Solution: De-centralize the Church. Furthermore, from now on every local Parish is considered to be responsible for the social and economic well-being of its parishioners in addition to their spiritual well-being. More on that in a moment.
Point 5: Teachings. Ever notice how all the good stuff Jesus said is ignored? “It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God�—remember that one? And “Love the Lord God with all your heart� could be great if we listen to my third point and believe God to be equally in every living creature.
Solution: Do the things I just said. Also, Luke-12:24, where Jesus instructs us to look to the “birds of the air� for wisdom, will be the basis for the creation of a permaculture-based village-level Catholic society, held together by the redistributive ceremonies the Church will hold every year at Christmas.
This is how those ceremonies will look like: Every member of the Parish/village will gather in the Home of Mystery (the wild church). (This place also corresponds to Zone 5 in the permaculture system). The priest and priestess will recite the Beatitudes, and everyone who has faired poorly over the last year will step forward. The most successful will one by one give their possessions away to these most in need. The “rich� will be left with nothing, and will thus be leaders in the tribe for the next year.
Point 6: Death. (Yeah, I know, I said 5, but it’s going to take a while to undo this 2,000-year-old mess). Clearly we can’t have a good earth-based religion based on “going to heaven.�
Solution: From now on “The Kingdom of God� will be taken to mean the dynamic interplay between all the sentient living and nonliving beings of planet earth. When a Catholic dies, they will be buried without any sort of chemical treatment in the Home of Mystery, where their spiritual as well as their physical nutrients will go to nourish this sacred land.
Point 7: Sin. (We can’t have six points without having seven. Come on, we’ve got Symbols to maintain). Of course in an earth-based, body-loving, sex-worshipping community, most of the old sins are going to have to get tossed by the wayside.
Solution: Since “going to heaven� now means burial on the sacred ground, the only thing that can keep you out is coating your body in toxins. From now on it is a mortal sin to use chemical hairsprays, deodorants, makeup, etc; as well as to eat non-organic food.
There are a few things which can get you kicked out of our new Parishes, namely hoarding wealth; stealing from your fellow Parishioner; and attempting to exert power over any other person. These things will keep you out of the burial ground as well. After all, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.�
There. I’ve done it. I’ve saved the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict: Feel free to post your reply here on Anthropik. We all know you lurk here.
You know…. I didn’t think it [i]could[/i] be saved, but you may be on to something, here, Steve
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 April 2005 @ 11:48 AM
Off the record, I’d love to make the changes you suggest. But seeing as how I’m a white male chauvinist and rich, I don’t think that it’d go over well for my public appearance. I mean, what if I actually DID something about the problems of the Earth… then people wouldn’t NEED popes like us anymore. I already feel worthless enough as it is, I don’t need the small power and influence that I have t dwindle any more.
I hope you can understand my predicament.
- Bennie
Comment by Pope Benedict XVI — 20 April 2005 @ 1:26 PM
So to sum up, your solution for saving the Catholic Church is making it not Catholic any more. I suppose the only problem with this is that animism is already a religion. Might be kind of confusing for some people if we started calling it Catholicism too.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 April 2005 @ 2:52 PM
Papa Ratzi’s latest support for fascism…
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 April 2005 @ 2:42 PM
Well, in my experience, what Catholics hate more than anything is someone who crosses them (pun intended, of course). I was nearly beheaded in an argument with my two devout Catholic bosses. These are people who showed up to work on Ash Wednesday sporting smudgy plus signs on their foreheads. A few weeks later, as I was preparing to leave work on Holy Thursday for the long Easter weekend, I stupidly got into a discussion with them about the last supper, and innocently remarked on how it was a Passover meal. Now, I do not consider myself to be a Catholic in any sense of the word, but I did go to Catholic school for a couple of years, and I paid attention at least some of the time. I was pretty sure of myself going in, but by the end of the yelling they had me nearly convinced that I was full of shit. At one point one boss actually said, Roxanne, you’d better leave now before I get REALLY angry!” I’m serious, folks, these Catholics were deeply offended that I would even suggest a connection between Easter and a Jewish holiday. So what did I do, idiot that I am? I looked it up. I even found an actual passage of scripture that talks about the Passover. I showed it to my bosses, who, after several minutes of harumphing, could only say, “Well, I still think the Jews have it all wrong.”
There you go.
Remind me never to cross a Catholic.
Comment by Raku — 21 April 2005 @ 4:24 PM
Wow, Raku. That’s pretty weird. I mean I know there are a lot of Christians who can’t admit the fact that Jesus was a Jew (does Christ being a Christ-killer make Him suicidal?), but I’ve never heard of anyone getting that angry about it. Fortunately, I’m fairly certain that your bosses’ point of view is not one that is shared by Catholic doctrine.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 April 2005 @ 9:46 PM
Roxxy– Hi! Also, that’s horrifying…although you can never underestimate the average American’s intelliegence & knowledge on matters of religion. I once had a conversation with a friend that went like this:
“You’re Catholic?”
“Yeah.”
“You know they killed Jesus.”
“What?”
“Yeah. The people that killed Jesus. Wasn’t that the Roman Catholics?”
That was with a person I considered rather intelligent…
Mike:
“So to sum up, your solution for saving the Catholic Church is making it not Catholic any more.”
Yes! That’s it exactly!
Comment by Steve Thomas — 21 April 2005 @ 10:49 PM
Roxy, I say this as someone who has practically memorized the Catechism of Mother Church, but your two bosses are guilty of heresy now, and unfit to partake in Holy Communion. They have promulgated a position contrary to scripture and to the tradition of Mother Church, and tried to spread that view. Ergo, heresy. Ergo, cardinal sin, eternal hellfire and all the rest.
Which is kinda how I got out, too.
(Well, I had no problem understanding the Last Supper was a Passover meal, but you get the idea)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 April 2005 @ 6:59 AM
You know, I’d tell them that, but then they’d probably crucify me.
Heeeey, wait a minute…. maybe that’s how this whole thing got STARTED!!!
To be the next messiah, or not to be the next messiah, THAT is the question…
You’ll know my answer when the white smoke starts coming out my ears.
Comment by Raku — 22 April 2005 @ 8:58 AM
Don’t worry about crucifixion, Roxy. You’ll feel better in about three days.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 22 April 2005 @ 12:37 PM
Good god, why would you want to save the church?
Relegate it to the midden of history, with all religion.
That being said, I like the new pope.
He isn’t a reformer, and would rather the church die than change.
Hear hear!
Comment by spike — 28 April 2005 @ 10:19 PM
The Catholic Church is easy to hate on, but they haven’t been all bad. The “Peace of God” was quite a feat. They’ve overseen charities caring for the sick and poor for two thousand years. The Catholic doctrine on conscience even allows for some diversity of opinion.
I also disagree strongly with this notion that religion is entirely bad. While it’s patently and obviously true that organized religion is often a primary bulwark of hierarchical civilization, this does not all religion make. Religion in and of itself is a human universal. Everyone has a religion of some kind. So if religion itself is wrong, then we’re stuck with some kind of “fall of man” scenario. Saying religion is bad is, to me, akin to saying society (as in, the very notion of people living in groups) is bad. Both statements are ludicrous because they use a broad term like “religion” or “society” as a synonym for “the particular religion or society I happen to be in.”
Finally, American coverage of the Roman Catholic Church in recent years has impressed me deeply with its utter arrogance. The Church is 2,000 years old; it commands a billion faithful in the world’s fastest growing regions. They are far more relevant than anything the “mainstream media” says. They’re nowhere near the “midden of history.” To consider the Church as “irrelevant,” or to think they give a rat’s ass what a bunch of Americans think of some passing “sex scandal”, shows the kind of deep lack of perspective that only an American could indulge.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 29 April 2005 @ 9:58 AM
I never said the church did nothing good- I don’t care whether they have or not.
There simply is no evidence of any god or supernatural power of any kind, and no ceremony, charity, or community will change this.
Re: “midden of history”
What I want, and what I get are often two different things. I am used to this, and will not change my opinion to conform to popular opinion, no matter how many billions seem find the church’s message relevant.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, by the way.
This is the worst case of circular logic I have ever seen.
Comment by spike — 30 April 2005 @ 12:54 PM
There simply is no evidence of any god or supernatural power of any kind, and no ceremony, charity, or community will change this.
You show an axiom here, that senses and reason are sufficient to understand the world. There is no evidence that this is true, but you believe it anyway. Once someone has accepted your axiom, everything else you believe follows. But you cannot prove your axiom; it is unfalsifiable, and unprovable. “Everyone has a religion of some kind” is not circular logic, it is a stating a conclusion and foregoing the reasoning. And here you have the reasoning. Not even you are devoid of religion, because before you can begin your empirical, scientific journey, you must first make the leap of faith that human reason is sufficient to understand the universe. To me, that seems an even bigger leap of faith than positing an invisible superman in the sky who makes everything happen.
What I want, and what I get are often two different things. I am used to this, and will not change my opinion to conform to popular opinion, no matter how many billions seem find the church’s message relevant.
I wouldn’t expect you to simply conform to the opinions of others. That said, the relevance of a belief system is very easily measured by how many believe in it … in which case, the Roman Catholic Church is far more relevant than secular humanism. By that, we would have to conclude that if anything is heading for the midden of history, it’s the Enlightenment, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 April 2005 @ 1:26 PM
In one of those delightfully twisted coincidences, given the last post by spike, I just finished watching “What the *!&%# do we know?” which, in essence, showcases quantum physics and then links it up with religion. At its heart, it claims that the deeper scientists go into the realm of science, the more mystical their beliefs appear and the more animistic.
So, if you’re looking for evidence of g-d, spike, try hard-core physics.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 30 April 2005 @ 1:55 PM
Ehhh, I’ve heard some nasty stuff about “What the Bleep”… The same basic premise is available in the book “The Dancing Wu-Li Masters,” without the crazy New Age cult aspects.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 30 April 2005 @ 5:47 PM
There simply is no evidence of any god or supernatural power of any kind, and no ceremony, charity, or community will change this.
In addition to what Jason said, I would point out that this sort of depends on how you define God. If we think of “God” as being the entity or force that created the universe, then simply the fact that we’re here is evidence of God’s existence.
“Everyone has a religion of some kind.”
This is the worst case of circular logic I have ever seen.
The statement that everyone has some kind of religion may not in itself prove that God exists, but that’s not necessarily the point of saying it. I believe the point that Jason was making was that religion is not bad, not whether or not God exists. And it is true that religion has many social and psychological benefits. It’s something that has worked well for us for thousands of years. So the way that atheists today just totally dismiss something that has been a cornerstone of human society for millennia simply because they read a chapter out of a textbook about a few Enlightenment philosophers (many of whom were devout Christians, by the way) seems to me to be the height of presumption.
If you choose not to believe in God, that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t existence. Nor does it mean that religion–any religion–has nothing to offer.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 30 April 2005 @ 8:53 PM
Re: “What the…”
My enjoyment mostly came from (a) visual effects (I like pretty lights
) and (b) the hard science stuff (primarily neurology and quantum physics). The rest is stuff I’d heard before. Of course, if we want to go off on a philosophical debate on it, it fascinates me that the unsaid slant is that we humans are the only ones who can ‘change reality’ through perception and we’re all supposed to ‘become gods.’ Still, even with the drawbacks, an amusing watch.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 30 April 2005 @ 10:53 PM
It was actually made as an introductory tape for a New Age cult around a medium who claims to channel the spirit of an Atlantean warrior named Rathma. And apparently, many of the scientists interviewed were quite upset when they saw the movie, saying their words had been misrepresented and taken out of context.
Even with that, it does look like an interesting movie, and I should see it some time. Just need to take it with a whole fruggin’ salt lick….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 11:28 AM
That’s hilarious! Oh and I’m quite familiar with “Ramtha.” My favorite story is J.Z. Knight (the ‘channeler’ for Ramtha) convincing Linda Evans (from Dynasty fame) to invest in a bunch of thoroughbreds because they were “descended from Ramtha’s Atlantean war horses.”
Some days, I wish I had that kind of pull.
And I really ought to get this trivia out of my head.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 1 May 2005 @ 4:34 PM
You show an axiom here, that senses and reason are sufficient to understand the world. There is no evidence that this is true, but you believe it anyway.
I would appreciate it if you not reword my arguments to suit your own counterarguments. Its poor form. I said nothing of the kind, and you’re equivocating on the term “believe.”
I said what I said: That there is no evidence of god. If you say that god is outside the realm of human understanding, I suppose I can’t argue with that, but then I really have no interest in examining something so silly. If god is outside human understanding, why does man have any concept of god at all? If god is unknowable, why bother with religion? In this light, all religion is almost certainly hokum.
… you must first make the leap of faith that human reason is sufficient to understand the universe.
No I don’t, nor have I. No one I have ever met in any scientific field has ever said anything so loony. Ever. In fact, I have had discussions with physicists who claim that much of the universe is outside human understanding. In no way does this prove (or disprove) any god existing.
Nothing in science is faith based. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Belief simply mean acceptance. To equivocate the terms does not further the debate, it is an illogical attempt to shut it down.
That said, the relevance of a belief system is very easily measured by how many believe in it … in which case, the Roman Catholic Church is far more relevant than secular humanism. By that, we would have to conclude that if anything is heading for the midden of history, it’s the Enlightenment, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Numbers only show how many people find a message relevant- in no way do numbers validate nor invalidate the truth of the message.
“Everyone has a religion of some kind” is not circular logic…
It, (or more accurately your argument to which I was refering: “Everyone has a religion of some kind… is bad.” Wow, there’s a slippery slope in there, too.) is such an egregious example of circular logic, that it almost exactly matches the example in my textbook from college.
In addition to what Jason said, I would point out that this sort of depends on how you define God. If we think of “God” as being the entity or force that created the universe, then simply the fact that we’re here is evidence of God’s existence
(This too, is circular logic. You presume your thesis in the statement: that something created the universe.)
Notwithstanding… Is there any evidence of such an “entity?” Is there evidence (assuming existence) that there was only one such entity? That said entity survived the creation of the universe, and is immortal and omnipotent? and would at all have any concern for inconsequential lifeforms such as man?
Comment by spike — 1 May 2005 @ 4:51 PM
No one I have ever met in any scientific field has ever said anything so loony. Ever. In fact, I have had discussions with physicists who claim that much of the universe is outside human understanding. In no way does this prove (or disprove) any god existing.
Nothing in science is faith based. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Belief simply mean acceptance. To equivocate the terms does not further the debate, it is an illogical attempt to shut it down.
You’ve totally missed the point. In fact, ALL of science is faith based. Sure, you have your experiments and measurements. But at its core, all of science is still based on the axiom that we live in a universe that can be measured and observed. There’s no way of ever proving it. You simply have to accept it on faith. If it’s true then yeah, you did good. If it’s not true, then none of your “evidence” means anything.
By the same token, if instead of believing that we live in an observable, measureable universe, you take as your axiom that we live in a universe created by an all-powerful God, then religion makes perfect sense. Either way, you have to begin somewhere with a leap of faith.
Once again, this isn’t said to either prove or disprove God’s existence. It’s simply an acknowledgement of the fact that neither science nor religion is any better than the other.
It, (or more accurately your argument to which I was refering: “Everyone has a religion of some kind… is bad.” Wow, there’s a slippery slope in there, too.) is such an egregious example of circular logic, that it almost exactly matches the example in my textbook from college.
Again, this is only if you’re looking at it as an argument for the existence of God, which it is not. He wasn’t talking about whether or not God exists. What he was arguing was that religion isn’t bad. And whether or not religion is beneficial has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not religion is true.
(This too, is circular logic. You presume your thesis in the statement: that something created the universe.)
It’s actually not circular. It may not be sound, but that doesn’t make it circular. The theory is that we know we are here now. So where did we all come from? Everything has a beginning. And if we define “God” as whatever it was that caused the universe to begin, then we know that God exists because we know that we exist. The problem, which is what you seem to be implying, is whether or not the universe actually had a beginning. Has the universe simply always existed without a need for it to be created by anything? And that’s certainly possible.
Notwithstanding… Is there any evidence of such an “entity?” Is there evidence (assuming existence) that there was only one such entity? That said entity survived the creation of the universe, and is immortal and omnipotent? and would at all have any concern for inconsequential lifeforms such as man?
You’ll note that I started out by saying that it depends on how you define “God.” God does not necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Not all religions believe in only a single god, or that their god is immortal, or that their god is omnipotent, or that their god has any interest in humanity. Now most people would likely find the definition of “God” as simply the source of creation to be too limiting for anything worthy of the name “God.” I just think it’s something interesting to consider.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 5:29 PM
I would appreciate it if you not reword my arguments to suit your own counterarguments. Its poor form. I said nothing of the kind, and you’re equivocating on the term “believe.”
Of course you didn’t. It’s a deep-seated axiom–the kind no one ever says out loud. It’s not a matter of being deceptive, it’s the simple fact that we can never take the time to iterate all of our assumptions and premises for any conclusion we reach. There comes a point where you simply assume the reader shares a basic premise–like the naturalist premise that there is a real world beyond our perception, that we can truly perceive it, and that our senses and reason are sufficient to understand that reality.
No I don’t, nor have I. No one I have ever met in any scientific field has ever said anything so loony. Ever. In fact, I have had discussions with physicists who claim that much of the universe is outside human understanding. In no way does this prove (or disprove) any god existing.
Then you need to spend some time studying epistemology and the philosophy of science, because that’s the most basic expression of the Enlightenment, and the philosophical cornerstone of all science. If any of the above premises are untrue–that there is no reality beyond our perception, that our senses are incapable of reliably understanding that reality, or that our senses and reason are incapable of understanding that reality–than science is simply nonsense. We can’t measure anything, because that relies on faulty senses. We can’t understand anything. We can never truly know anything.
The founding cornerstone of science is modernism–precisely this belief that the world is knowable. It’s an assumption so basic that no scientist bothers to talk about it, but it is intrinsic to all science. Yet it is a belief. There is no evidence for it, and no evidence against it; just as there is no evidence for or against G-d.
Humans have evolved the ability to think both logically and mythopaiecally. We are at our best when we use both in conjunction, shoring up intuitive leaps with solid research. That’s how the benzene ring was discovered from dreams of a mythical ouroboros. To reject logic for faith, or to reject faith for logic, are both absurd–both reject a full half of human experience. As JMS put it in Babylon 5, “Science and faith are like the shoes on your feet. You can get farther with both than you can with just one.”
Numbers only show how many people find a message relevant- in no way do numbers validate nor invalidate the truth of the message.
True. But a belief system doesn’t need to be true to be relevant. The Heliopolitan belief in Ra is something few people today share, but it was highly relevant to ancient Egypt. The Catholic Church may not be right–I certainly don’t think they are–but they’re much more relevant to the world today than, say, the American media (whom I also don’t think are right).
It, (or more accurately your argument to which I was refering: “Everyone has a religion of some kind… is bad.” Wow, there’s a slippery slope in there, too.) is such an egregious example of circular logic, that it almost exactly matches the example in my textbook from college.
No, it really doesn’t. A tautology (”circular logic”) is a statement true by its own definition, and therefore meaningless. For example, saying that all blue birds are birds, and all blue birds are blue. “Everyone has a religion of some kind,” is a logical statement, not a tautology. It is possible to falsify–simply produce a person who lacks any kind of religion, and you will show the statement to be false.
In fact, it is an important–and true–claim. Religion is hardwired in our very brains. We all hold basic beliefs, most of which are so basic we don’t even bother to actually state them, that inform our worldview on an incredibly low level. Like modernism. For all its claims to rationality, it is no more or less rational than any other religion.
(This too, is circular logic. You presume your thesis in the statement: that something created the universe.)
No, this is a basic conditional. If A, then B. If A is untrue, then the conditional is automatically true. A conditional can only be proven false if A is true, and B is false.
Notwithstanding… Is there any evidence of such an “entity?” Is there evidence (assuming existence) that there was only one such entity? That said entity survived the creation of the universe, and is immortal and omnipotent? and would at all have any concern for inconsequential lifeforms such as man?
Who cares? You’re listing criteria for a very specific definition of G-d, used only by three out of millions of religions worldwide. For example, my own religion–Pantheism–defines G-d as the universe. The existence of the universe is the existence of G-d.
Most atheists are reacting to Christianity in particular; your criteria for G-d certainly seem to indicate that you, too, are afflicted by the common atheist misunderstanding that Christianity is the only religion that exists. In fact, the definitions of “G-d” are so numerous and diverse that almost anything could be evidence of the existence of one of them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 8:01 PM
One of my personal favorite arguments is the following:
God is perfect.
For one to be perfect, one must exist.
Therefore, God exists.
BTW, 5 bonus points to the first person who can explain the logical errors in that argument.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 8:18 PM
Jason, you’ve said this before and I’ve left it alone. But this is only true if you are using some very odd definition of religion. Religion to me is a belief system involving gods and ritual. While I agree that everyone has a belief system, I disagree that everyone has a religion.
This is begging the question. The presumption that the universe was created implies a creator. Thus you have assumed your conclusion.
Wouldn’t actually measuring and observing the universe prove that the universe is measurable and observable. Note: This is not “kicking the rock” The fact that one can measure things does not imply that those measurements are sufficient to understanding.
Comment by JimFive — 2 May 2005 @ 9:55 AM
So Taoism and Buddhism aren’t religions? Animism? Pantheism? Religion is simply those beliefs we hold about the fundamental underpinnings of the universe, those basic ideas for which we have no proof and accept on faith. A fundamentalist Christian cannot prove the existence of his G-d, but he believes it anyway, and it forms the most basic level of his understanding of the world. An animist can’t prove that everything around him is alive with a living spirit, but it forms the basis of his entire worldview. A Buddhist can’t prove that kharma is real, but it forms the basis of his entire worldview. An atheist can’t prove a reality exists beyond his own perception, but it forms the basis of his entire worldview.
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.
Basically, Humean skepticism comes down to the fact that we always experience reality as mediated by faulty senses–so it’s impossible to disentangle whether there’s even a reality there at all. Assuming there is, then it would seem we can measure it, assuming it’s not just our faulty senses and more of our brain doing what it’s best designed to do–putting seemingly random pieces into a coherent system.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 May 2005 @ 10:34 AM
This is begging the question. The presumption that the universe was created implies a creator. Thus you have assumed your conclusion.
Not really. The argument basically looks like this:
Everything that exists has a cause.
The universe exists.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
To that, I then add:
The cause of the universe is God.
The universe has a cause (see above).
Therefore, God exists.
The initial assumption is not that the universe was created. The assumption is that everything has a cause. If that is true, then it must also be true that the universe has a cause. So if we define “God” as being whatever it was that cause the universe to exist, then we know that “God” exists because we know that we exist. It’s not circular at all. The real issue is one of soundness. First, is the definition of “God” used in this argument appropriate? Many would likely find it lacking in a number of key areas. Second, is it true that everything that exists has a cause? Not necessarily.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 May 2005 @ 12:38 PM
If the Tao is a god, or Buddha is a god then they are religions. Some forms of Animism are religions, some probably aren’t. Pantheism which views everything as god is a religion if it has rituals. With Animism and Pantheism I would argue that it depends on the form. To call all Animism one thing and Pantheism one thing is to call Monotheism one thing. Monotheism isn’t a religion, it’s a tenet of some belief systems.
As I said, an odd definition. Religion, as normally defined, involves belief in a god.
While you can create your own definitions it hinders communication.
This is the very Definition of “Begging the Question”. For God to be the cause of the universe god must exist. You are presuming your conclusion.
Comment by JimFive — 3 May 2005 @ 7:43 AM
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.
As far as Mike’s argument, you’re getting all mired in the particular values of the variables. Look at this, and tell me if you see anything wrong with it.
Premise: Every A has a B.
C is an A.
Therefore, C has a B.
You got pretty caught up on “G-d is an X,” too, thinking that “is” implies the conclusion. Hardly. Try this one:
The Tooth Fairy is a woman.
I am the Tooth Fairy.
Therefore, I am a woman.
“G-d,” like the Tooth Fairy, is–if nothing else–a concept. So we can say things about that concept. “Is” is valid. My argument here is valid. It isn’t sound. The concept of “the Tooth Fairy” is usually conceived as a female entity, true, but my second premise–that I am the Tooth Fairy–is false. The argument is valid, the logic is correct, but it is not sound, because the premises are false. In short, it is theoretically true, but because its premises are false, it has nothing to do with the real world. This is the same as Mike’s argument. It’s valid, there’s no contesting that. You can certainly reject the premises if you like, which would make it unsound–and thus irrelevant. But still valid.
As he said, it’s a question of soundness, not validity. If “G-d” is simply the cause of the universe, then “G-d” may well be whatever physical force triggered the Big Bang. You’re getting all caught up in Western notions of theology, and forgetting that there’s a very wide array of beliefs about gods. Norse gods could be killed, even tricked, by mortals. Animist religions don’t have gods at all, just spirits all around them. Pantheists don’t separate G-d from the universe around them, so by the Pantheistic perspective questioning the existence of G-d is questioning the existence of reality. For Taoists or Buddhists, the only true “G-d” is an almost naturalistic principle like kharma, operating almost the same as physical forces. In this wide diversity of opinion, G-d-as-whatever-bumped-off-the-Big-Bang seems to fit pretty comfortably, wouldn’t you agree? It’s not an outlier by any stretch, given that the conceptions we already have on the table vary so dramatically.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2005 @ 8:14 AM
I have no problem with that. However, later you say that Taoists and Buddhists do have gods.
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.
Comment by JimFive — 3 May 2005 @ 9:31 AM
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2005 @ 9:49 AM
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.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 3 May 2005 @ 1:34 PM
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.
Comment by Raku — 6 May 2005 @ 1:19 PM
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.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 6 May 2005 @ 3:10 PM
You know, I really wanted a reason for everyone in the world to stop wearing deodorant. Thanks!
Comment by Marco — 12 May 2005 @ 9:15 AM
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
Comment by JimFive — 12 May 2005 @ 10:17 AM
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.
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 May 2005 @ 12:29 PM
While I was reading Steve’s article on-line, this popped up:
http://www.totallycatholic.com/
Enough said
regards
Richard
Comment by Richard Parker — 16 August 2005 @ 1:01 AM
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.
Comment by Seth Goldberg — 3 July 2007 @ 9:09 PM