K-Punk and the Catholics

Status
Not open for further replies.
infinite thought said:
I wrote:
Well, it strikes me that the default position for many people these days is a kind of lazy atheism, in that they assume that science has somehow done all the work for them in disproving the existence of God (either evolutionary theory or work on the origins of the universe).

Sciences have in fact, for ever phenomenon, a better explanations than the religions
currently being marketed.

I think it's important to think that it's actually very hard to be 1. a fully consistent atheist

No, it's rather bloody simple.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
One last go, then I'll give up.

echo-friendly said:
All practising catholics of my acquaintance think Papal Infallibility is bollox,
including a HIGH ranking catholic official. Pope John Paul II has stated, in jest
to be sure, but nevertheless in front of 100000s: "Even a Pope is fallible, at least
when it comes to the weather".

You clearly do not understand what Papal Infallibility means, let alone entails, or you would realize that the Pope is fallible when it comes to the weather.


And exactly what makes you accept that "Church leaders, the College of bishops" are the
infallible arbiters of what counts as catholic?

The fact that it is a hierarchical organisation, with them at the head claiming to have infallibility when it comes to Christ's teachings conferred upon them by Christ Himself. This is why, unlike in the case of high court judges, there is no further court of appeal. Blair is not infallible and can theoretically be brought to task for his decisions. This is not the case with the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Of course there are Catholics who do not agree with this, but my original point was I do not understand how they can remain Catholic rather than, for example, switching denominations.

I also have problems understanding the Christians of your acquaitance who apparently give the primary tenets of their faith without reference to Christ.
 
johneffay said:
One last go, then I'll give up.
The fact that it is a hierarchical organisation,

You don't seem to get that I deny this claim. It is nothing more but YOUR description of what the catholic church is/should be. But this description is not accepted by everybody. It is like making a photocopy of a £50 note and then demanding the bank to accept it on the grounds that it is pretty similar to what the banks themselves understand as £50 notes. Basically you treat a religion like a simple static thing. But that ontologisation (or, if you prefer quaint Marxist terminology, fetishisation) does not work for socially constructed entities whose identity depends in part on self-description. Remember the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland"? "A word means what I want it to mean." This is a very fundamental insight. In that sense, The Catholic Church is what those who want to be Catholics want it to be. Hoplessly circular and hence all we can say is that there are inevitably conflicting accounts of what that church may be.


This is why, unlike in the case of high court judges, there is no further court of appeal. Blair is not infallible and can theoretically be brought to task for his decisions. This is not the case with the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Popes can be killed, replaced, put into prison, convert to Islam, have a wank ...

Tony Blair: "I was right about Irak!"

Pope: "I am infallible!"

Where's the difference? Both use the rhetoric of an unchallengable insight into right or wrong.

but my original point was I do not understand how they can remain Catholic rather than, for example, switching denominations.

And my answer has been, that it is only a problem if you take belief in papal infallibility to be a necessary precondition to being a catholic.

I also have problems understanding the Christians of your acquaitance who apparently give the primary tenets of their faith without reference to Christ.

But why should they care about your problems?
 

mms

sometimes
yep there is the whole story of the first set of commandments being destroyed and rewritten after moses' fit of anger and rewriting them in exodus 34 as well.
 
Well, this'll be my last post on this too....hopefully.

Echo-friendly, are you seriously denying that there is any such thing as the RCC, beyond what 'people want to make of it'? This is quite literally an impossible position to hold, what with people adhering to strict beliefs and tenets that precisely define them as Catholic (transubstantiation not consubstantiation, papal infallibility - as has been pointed out numerous times already, certain somewhat definitive attitudes towards contraception and sexuality). And the Vatican...? Just a place like any other?! The Pope....just a guy like any other?! If there are no specific strutural characteristics of the RCC then what do you think we are discussing?

In response to your claim that it's 'rather bloody simple' to be an atheist I would ask for some more detail. You may think so, but I would contend 1. that it's an incredibly historically anomalous position to hold, being the privilege (or curse) of a tiny number of homo sapiens (and remember, I'm talking about any form of belief-system here) 2. That in order to be consistent about it you have to rid yourself of any residue of theological language, belief (including the very language of belief), furthermore, you have to have explanations for absolutely everything that theology can also provide you answers for (the creation of the universe, the specificity of men, the existence of animals, the peculiarities of sex, the inevitability of death, the existence of morality, etc. etc.). I have a lot more time, as I think johneffay was saying, for people who are consistent in their religious belief than I do for people who are sloppy about their atheism. If it is so 'bloody simple' to be an atheist, I would ask you to explain your position carefully and rationally - I find it difficult to do so, as do many others when pushed.
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
infinite thought said:
you have to have explanations for absolutely everything that theology can also provide you answers for
Why is that? I thought that one of the priveleges of atheism was precisely not to have answers for everything?
 
Ok, so not my last post then....

If you're gonna be a serious atheist (as opposed to someone who just says 'well I dunno either way', i.e. the agnostic, which is what I think most people who claim to be atheists actually are), you at least need recourse to some kind of methodology that renders certain avenues of religious questioning impossible. So whilst you may not think that 'science' has solved the riddle of the origin of the universe, you nevertheless have a pretty strong commitment to thinking that one day it will.

Given that atheism is the technical rejection of God/s and belief in him/them, you have to have at least a few answers to the questions that people who do believe will throw at you, i.e. explain the origins of the universe if God (or some other deity) didn't create it; explain away the major differences between humans and other animals; explain man's seemingly stubborn historical desire to believe in something supernatural (in any/all its forms).

The best way of doing this is by denying the legitimacy of theological questions - via forms of materialism (the claim that monotheism is a virus like any other), or by shutting down the supposed gap between humans and other animals (we die like they do, it's a mistake to think that we are special...and we certainly don't think that animals believe in God), etc. etc.

So, I think, be.jazz, you were right to point out problems with my previous claim - it's not that atheism has to give final answers, but that it has to reframe the entire theological debate in terms that operate outside the logic of religious belief...and be prepared to live with the consequences (e.g. a meaningless universe populated by short-lived animals with ideas above their station....obviously this is all good, but I wonder how many people really live their atheism, given how strong a claim it has to be).
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
It's a bit hard for me to participate in this debate, as my level of philosophical thought is far, far from k-punkian heights. My answers to your question sound simplistic in comparaison. That said...

I guess etymologically and historically atheism is a rejection of God, but I don't feel or even understand the missionary zeal implicit in your post to counter and shut down the possibility of religion.

explain man's seemingly stubborn historical desire to believe in something supernatural (in any/all its forms).
Isn't it simply the desire to understand the world we live in? I get the impression that people feel a need for the supernatural so as to be able to feel "awe." Personally, I don't feel that need. Knowing about the law of gravity and being able to calculate exactly the speed, acceleration and trajectory of a falling object doesn't affect my emotional perception of a perfectly executed jump-shot or falling pebble. Further, that the human brain & body are able to create the complex perceptions that it does, imbuing things with beauty, for example, is fascinating enough for me.

explain away the major differences between humans and other animals
Why would this be a major theological question? I don't think any other animal has our combination of complex, double-articulated (I might be getting the second part of that hyphen wrong...) speech, higher cognitive functions and opposable thumbs.

explain the origins of the universe if God (or some other deity) didn't create it
We may get there, but we may not. What I don't understand is why a God would have made this massive universe just for us. I'd rather be, and I'd certainly rather consider myself, a meaningless short-lived animal with ideas above my station than the pinnacle of all Creation.

But, as I said, this all sounds simplistic...
 

JimO'Brien

Active member
The various comments by infinite thought and JohnEffay above seem to demand a commitment far above any that the vast majority of people are willing or able to give. I would have thought that the vast majority of self proclaimed athiests would fail IT's test and that the vast majority of (Western) RC's would fail JE's. It is sad for me to realise that after all those years disapointing my mother by being a failed Catholic I now find myself to be a failed athiest too.
 
Sorry Jim! I was putting the case in an extreme manner is true....but these are issues dear to my black and rotten heart. Being raised on a diet of corrupt liberal existentialism, I have fundamental problem with people declaring themselves to be anything at all without extremely good reasons. It's a sickness....

be-jazz, they're very good questions...just one thing though - it's not that I necessarily am a hardcore atheist in the way I've been describing it. I'm just trying to think about it from the standpoint of both the consistent atheist and the consistent believer in order to work out what's really at stake....of course I'm presenting these positions in extreme ways, but I do think this is where the question of belief/religion eventually leads...they are matters of life and death, after all....or inorganic transference of matter into other states.....

Just to amuse you, here are some quotes from Zizek on Catholicism and the Commandments:

Zizek: 'When I discuss Christianity with superficial Catholics, their usual line of defense is to say, 'You atheists, you cannot really understand what is a religious experience.' But how do they know what is an atheist experience? I am almost tempted to claim that it is more natural for us to believe. To be an atheist, my God, is a very difficult thing.'

Zizek: 'In our post-political liberal-permissive society, human rights can be seen as expressing the right to violate the Ten Commandments. The right to privacy is, in effect, the right to commit adultery, in secret, without being observed or investigated. The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property is, in effect, the right to steal (to exploit others). Freedom of the press and of expression - the right to lie. The right of free citizens to possess weapons - the right to kill. Freedom of religious belief - the right to celebrate false gods. Human rights do not, of course, directly condone the violation of the Commandments, but they preserve a marginal 'grey zone' which is out of the reach of religious or secular power. In this shady zone, I can violate the Commandments, and if the Power catches me with my pants down and tries to prevent my violation, I can cry: 'Assault on my basic human rights!''
 

johneffay

Well-known member
JimO'Brien said:
The various comments by infinite thought and JohnEffay above seem to demand a commitment far above any that the vast majority of people are willing or able to give. I would have thought that the vast majority of self proclaimed athiests would fail IT's test and that the vast majority of (Western) RC's would fail JE's.

I agree entirely. This either says something about the inability of people to live up to the exigencies of their religion, or the inability of that religion to provide viable ways of life for the majority of their adherents. You choose ;)
 
be.jazz said:
Why is that? I thought that one of the priveleges of atheism was precisely not to have answers for everything?

young people today ... what ever happened to reading skills? I didn't say "athesism has the answer to everything".
I said, it has better answers than religion!

xxx
 
infinite thought said:
Echo-friendly, are you seriously denying that
there is any such thing as the RCC, beyond what 'people want to make
of it'? This is quite literally an impossible position to hold,

No, it's an easy position to hold (again!). And it's also the only one that takes seriously the infinite variety of religious expression. whether you like it or not: there is NO agreement among catholics what it means to be catholic. The same is true for other religions. It is a struggle (or otherwise) about an empty signifier.

what with people adhering to strict beliefs and tenets that precisely define them as Catholic

Some people's self-description of their catholicism is coherent with your description. That's all. I didn't say "it is impossible for catholics to describe their religion in ways that agree with infinite thoughts"

I would contend 1. that it's an incredibly historically anomalous position to hold,

That may be true, but it is also true of eating mars bars. Still I find their consumption poses no significant problem. Anyway, I also question the historical adequacy of your suggestion. Atheism is certainly older than Christianity. Furthermore, religious bureaucrats have always described themselves as being engaged in a struggle against heathens and those who don't believe at all, which suggests that Atheism has been around as long as organised religion. Your case becomes even weaker when one takes into account that Pantheism, Confucianism and Buddhism are not really religions at all and may be considered forms of atheism.

That in order to be consistent about it you have to rid yourself of any residue of theological language, belief (including the very language of belief),

Rubbish for several reasons. (1) I can talk however I want, (2) In a world full of believers it is convenient to use their language and (3) Belief and the like are not religious concepts at all in the first place. I refer you to Hans Blumenberg's fantastic PhD Thesis ("the legitimacy of the modern age" is it's English title I think) that cuts to shreds conventional narratives about modernity being a secularized version of Christianity.

furthermore, you have to have explanations for absolutely everything that theology can also provide you answers for (the creation of the universe, the specificity of men, the existence of animals, the peculiarities of sex, the inevitability of death, the existence of morality, etc. etc.).


Sorry, that's rubbish. Theology does not provide credible answers to any of these problems. This has been argued many times. For example, contemporary science says on the question of the origin of the universe: "We have no idea and we may never have". And conventional European theology: "The universe is gods' creation!" The question "And who did these gods come about"? is countered by "This is a meaningless question because the gods are transcendent and don't need creation" or some remix of that. In short, theology's answer is also "We don't know!".

That makes the Atheist's answer better because (1) simpler (entities are not needlessly multiplicated, and (2) more honest.
 
There is some agreement among Catholics as to what it means to be Catholic, otherwise they wouldn't be Catholic (and would be Anglican, atheist, agnostic, Buddist, something else entirely, etc.). But It's clear we are not going to get anywhere with this point in particular if you think all religious appellations are merely 'empty signifiers'. I will merely say that underdetermined is not the same as empty.

Just to clarify, I was refering to belief systems in general, and not just Christianity, when I argued that to be atheistic is historically anomalous. And it really is, given its specifically negative thrust - why do so many people call themselves atheists these days, if all they mean is that they have some vague commitment to science, and don't really care about God either way? The point here is one about its contemporary prevalence, especially when adopted in a casual, dismissive way. But I assume you think there's nothing specific about being an atheist either, that people can mean whatever they want to. Well then, end of discussion. If you think that eating chocolate and atheism are on a par then you're the perfect subject of contemporary capitalism aren't you? It's just your choice man, believe or eat whatever you want....

You also didn't explain why belief is not a religious concept (despite your reference to Blumenberg's PhD). Nor did you explain why it is necessarily 'easy' to be an atheist.

I think you'll also find theology does attempt to give you answers to questions like 'And who [I think you meant how] did these gods come about"?' Whole discourses regarding the 'unmoved mover', 'the causeless cause' and so forth have been around for centuries, as have the questions themselves (they weren't stupid these theologians, it's far too easy to dismiss them as misguided or whatever).

I would hardly call monotheism's attempt to solve the questions of the universe one in which 'entities are needlessly multiplicated' - surely their virtue (if they have one) is their simplicity. Which is partly why they've been historically so successful.
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
echo-friendly said:
young people today ... what ever happened to reading skills? I didn't say "athesism has the answer to everything".
I said, it has better answers than religion!

xxx
old people today ... and their rapidly-diminishing eye-sight! I wasn't replying to you.
I was replying to Infinite Thought.

xxx
 
infinite thought said:
There is some agreement among Catholics as to what it means to be Catholic, otherwise they wouldn't be Catholic (and would be Anglican, atheist, agnostic, Buddist, something else entirely, etc.). But It's clear we are not going to get anywhere with this point in particular if you think all religious appellations are merely 'empty signifiers'. I will merely say that underdetermined is not the same as empty.

I don't think you will get more than "somebody is catholic if and only if they call themselves catholic" if you take into account the entirety of catholicism, just bear in mind what I have pointed out earlier: that the majority of believers have no idea about what the church bureaucracy would hold an indispensable tenet of its brand (e.g. 10 commandments or transubstantiation). Also bear in mind that (1) many explicitly follow several religions and (2) every single belief tenet of the (catholic) church is explicitly denied by some members of said church. To be sure, you find large clusters of followers who (think they) have more shared beliefs. But you also have to bear in mind that not all followers of one particular brand communicates with every other all the time or at all and that the central tenant's are rather woolly and fuzzy. This has the effect that average believers find themselves in a cluster of believers whose beliefs appear sufficiently similar, so they their belief of sharing in a common and well-defined church survives unchallenged.


Just to clarify, I was referring to belief systems in general, and not just Christianity, when I argued that to be atheistic is historically anomalous. And it really is, given its specifically negative thrust - why do so many people call themselves atheists these days, if all they mean is that they have some vague commitment to science, and don't really care about God either way?

Why shouldn't they, given that the majority of believers can hardly be said to employ more rigour in both, justification of their belief and understanding atheistic positions.

But I assume you think there's nothing specific about being an atheist either, that people can mean whatever they want to. Well then, end of discussion.

My personal understanding of atheism is quite specific. But that doesn't mean that it is universally shared by all those who consider themselves or are though to be atheists.


You also didn't explain why belief is not a religious concept (despite your reference to Blumenberg's PhD). Nor did you explain why it is necessarily 'easy' to be an atheist.

Life is short. But I'm having a good day so:

* It is easy to be atheist. proof: I'm not having problems with being one.

* I use the word belief as follows: P believes X if P holds X for true and P thinks that the reasons for assuming X is true are weak. Something along these lines. I can't see anything religious here (by religious I mean, something that is fundamentally beyond our ability to observe, comprehend, give convincing justifications for ...).

I think you'll also find theology does attempt to give you answers to questions like 'And who [I think you meant how] did these gods come about"?'

The answers are not convincing. So unconvincing in fact that they trigger thoughts like: why do they pump out this garbage that they don't really believe themselves? And the answers to that latter question centre around the social functions of religion.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Fiyah pon the vatican

I can't be arsed getting into all this at this stage, but for the record I am neither a catholic (in any sense) or an apologist for the vatican.

If people want to attack religion (and I see no reason to single out ONE religion other than one's own personal grudges) then that's fine by me. But I reserve the right to question their tactics.

For example I once spoke to a sixth form about my "unbelief" in a debate with a christian, a sikh and a muslim. Basically I did pretty well (30% of the vote) given that quite a few of the pupils self-identified as religious. But I didn't do this on the basis of calling them all nazis or sympathisers with a fascist belief system, surprisingly enough.

The conversations I had with people afterwards reinforced my impression that this had been the first time someone had articulated an atheist point of view in a sensible manner to them and that this had in a number of cases given them some inspiration and food for thought.

If Mark wants to sit at his desk and spend hours comparing Catholicism to Fascism then that's up to him. It's a big "so fucking what?" from over here, though.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
this has all made me want to go back to church for the first time (weddings, christenings, funerals and one spectacularly shitfaced christmas midnight mass excepted) in 16 years.
 

Woebot

Well-known member
stelfox said:
this has all made me want to go back to church for the first time (weddings, christenings, funerals and one spectacularly shitfaced christmas midnight mass excepted) in 16 years.
lol. the moment you set foot in there you'll regret it dave ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top