Comments on: Taking "In But Not Of" Too Far?

By: John Roberts’, Catholicism, and Abortion | Pro-Life @ Ales Rarus

John Roberts’, Catholicism, and Abortion | Pro-Life @ Ales Rarus — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:44:52 +0000

[...] As opposed to what? Are we talking denotation or connotation? letter or spirit? expression or intention?"What the law actually says" is often up to interpretation. Legalese is notoriously riddled with loopholes and wiggle room (The much-abused "pastoral reasons" in canon law is a prime example.). As I mentioned the other day, a lot of people seem to treat the Constitution like they treat Holy Scripture. That is, it's infallible in every single word and the letter of the law always trumps the spirit. Then again, others seem to treat it, much as they do Scripture, as warm and fuzzy platitudes written in invisible ink and forever open to revision by anyone with a pet cause. [...]

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Ooh, crap, I missed this earlier. Oh well, for the record...

those reasons paint religion as little more than a complex of social controllers endeavoring to perpetuate itself. The moment you say that about your own religion is the moment you cease to be a part of it.

I disagree. Religion is a complex of social controllers, just as is society is such a complex and culture is such a complex. None of these are merely that, of course. Do I no longer consider myself part of a culture once I recognize that it is "a complex of social controllers"? No. In fact, if I'm convinced that the social controllers are set up and ordered for mine and/or society's good, then I might support them all the more.

And...

But once your beliefs are guided by "human reason alone," you've already admitted that those beliefs aren't self-sufficient.

I know of no one making such a claim, viz. self-sufficiency, about their "beliefs". It's preposterous to think that any set of beliefs would purport to tell us everything we possibly can know. I suppose I could go 'round being completely agnostic about everything that is not directly addressed by my religious beliefs (which socks to wear today, Raisin Bran or Cheerios, &c.), but I am not, and I don't know anyone who is.

Best regards

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, I'm sure this is all water under the bridge by now… (I've been out of ASCII-reach for the past 4 days), but what I meant by "black and white" was your rather cut and dried assumption that of course the RCC (along with other sects who constantly obsess over fertility) is more concerned with popping out the next, larger generation of mindless minions than it is concerned with value or rights of individuals.

And yeah, okay, cities have existed for quite a long time. But until now, it has always been a minority of humans living in them. According to this source, more people worldwide will live in urban centers than in rural areas beginning in about 2007. This ramp up has been very rapid and recent.

The Global Problem Solving Squad is a straw man, but certainly no joke. I intended it as a rather opaque short-hand for casting doubt (if not contempt) on the prudence of attempting to solve "Global Problems" in general. I'm far more ammenable to attempting to solve local problems in local ways.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Who needs straw men when you have weirdos like this?"

Indeed. But every time I bring up folks like this, I get accused of putting forth straw men.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, I still wouldn't want to have Christianity judged based solely on people like this.

"With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

They're just as much Christians as anybody else. They even maintain the hunkered-down, let's-overthrow-our-corrupt-society mentality the Christians had in the early days.

Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of people who think huge swaths of Catholicism are equally loony, equally aggressive, equally dangerous, but rhetorically distinct, merely offering more sophisticated obscurantism in its writings. The Protestant fundamentalist wants to change the culture by getting people to bail on federalism and move back toward state sovereignty (and from there, no doubt, even more locally); the Catholic wants to change the culture by getting people to bail on federalism and move into the sovereignty of the church. Or did you forget that recent post about how abominable it is for Catholics to put nationalism above their religion?

The common denominator is that Christians of all stripes seem to distrust any system of social organization or political decision-making that does not fit their theology.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

You make some valid points, but I'm sure there are atheists you wouldn't want representing you (like a certain fellow I won't mention by name). Is it a dodge or a cheat to say "I distrust X as much as the next Y, but those people have gone off the deep end."?

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Unfortunately for your point, however, there is no Atheism to be diversely represented, only many individual atheists, almost all of whom seem to see things differently. And, as on of my atheist friends recently pointed out, we tend to be constitutionally incapable of organizing meaningfully, partly because we distrust organizations based on metaphysical propositions (or the denial of metaphysical propositions) because those organizations are, in a word, religions.

That said, there are certainly atheists who I think are nuts, but I don't feel damaged by them, nor threatened by their existence. However, I think I have good grounds to object when the views of another atheist are pretended to be my own. Conversely, you have good grounds to object when, say, Protestant theology is foisted upon you as your own. However, there is no denying that all Christians, if they are honest Christians, must put their loyalties to their religion, their theology, their idea of what their faith means, above everything else. At my end, there is no corresponding subordination according to some imagined doctrinal Atheism. (One might argue that there is a subordination to rationalism, but find that argument weak simply because everyone subordinates to rational thought—we only disagree on the propositions being rationalized.)

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Theo's right. These nut jobs have only one fault: actually believing what they believe… and it just so happens that what they happen believe is an error. But they get brownie points for believing it more strongly than most people who believe the truth believe it (if, in fact, one can actually believe without practicing it, which is a whole nuther metaphysical question). Come to think of it, there's probably more nobility in the Garden Variety Islamic Suicide Bomber than in many lukewarm Christians.

'Kay, I'm headed for cover now…

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Come to think of it, there's probably more nobility in the Garden Variety Islamic Suicide Bomber than in many lukewarm Christians."

Only if by "nobility" you mean "the ability to believe 'an error' so fervently that you'll die and kill for it." While your observation is certainly rational if founded on that premise, your casually uncritical recognition that religion at its "noblest" is zealotry even unto destruction is precisely what puts you into the same category as "these nut jobs." If you say that suicide bombers possess more "nobility" than "lukewarm Christians," what does that imply those lukewarm Christians should do?

You know, suicide bombers are willing to die for their cause, while it seems that Christians would rather just breed for theirs. But one Islamic bomber can kill far more people than one Christian can birth, and killing is much easier than child-rearing. Neither strategy goes beyond one central principle, though: the religion carried in the most bodies is the religion that wins. Which is more noble, to kill for your god, or breed for him? Either way, the people themselves don't matter—it only matters which religion they carry.