Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Catholics got offended!
Guess what dear readers? Some pious Catholics got offended by my last posts.
Of course all humanity must be grateful to Catholic priests if, on the grounds of their twisted theology, they bash humanity as disordered, immoral, secularized, heretic (less than in the past, fortunately), istruments of the devil, pre-marital fornicators, sinful onanists, or homosexuals, or even sinful voters of Kerry (!). They use all instruments possible to convery their 'messages'!
But if one creates a cartoon that jokingly (but not gratuitously) makes reference to the massive presence of gays and sexually-active people among 'celibate' Catholic priests, thus making a point on their disgusting hypocrisy, they get 'offended'! Awwwwwww
I know that I touched a nerve. But then again, it is not hard to, the reality of facts is too obvious.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Fashion changes ...
On the left a witch doctor of New Guinea (picture found here). On the right a modern Western version of witch doctor (source of the picture....oppsss "I forgot"). Different fashion, similar spirit.
I wish I had more time to continue the adventures of Rev. Dick N. Butt (Dick Norman Butt*)
*Butt: a surname (rare: 1 in 50000 families; popularity rank in the U.S.: #5069, says www.onelook.com
As you may know, I have drawn various cartoons in the past (check previous months). And I will do some more when I have more time. I have many more interesting stories to tell! In the meanwhile you can see below a modified magnification of the very first appearance of Rev. Dick N. Butt.
A sweet close-up of the gentle face of Rev. Dick N. Butt [Source, Dissociated Xpress]
Again on science vs. religion (3)
Other objections by DrChrist's reader, Jason, and my replies.
Jason: First, Mr. London seems to think that since I said that everything does not need to be proven, logically it follows that one can say anything and it can and should be believed. However, though everything that is believed must not be scientifically proven, some things can be disproven by simply empirical observation. For example, Mr. London speaks of "flying elephants." To any Catholic philosopher, this is absurd, because emprically this can be proven wrong. Moreover, it is not of the nature of an elephant to fly. Consequently, though everything we believe is not scientifically proven, it does not follow to say that we reject obvious empirical observation and scientific fact. As far as I know, there is not any scientific experiment which has proven that 100% without a doubt, God doesn't exist.
Joe: That flying elephants do not exists because of lack of empirical evidence applies also to God. And sorry, the flying elephants I am talking about are not the usual ones: they are perfect, and as a consequence, being perfect they cannot surely lack the feature of existence (Saint Joe London's ontological argument)! Apart from jokes, a claim that flying elephant exists is the same as saying that God exists. If the existence of God cannot be proved, then it is an ungrounded claim and nobody is soundly and rationally entitled to believe it. The solemnity with which an ungrounded claim is expressed does not make it truer.
Jason: Next, Mr. London states that any proof that isn't 100% isn't a proof. However, I believe that Aquinas gives that 100% proof. Mr. London, on the other hand, says that Aquinas' proof is "an expression of his own times." Moreover, he speaks of the "big leap" that Aquinas makes from the first mover to God. However, as I stated before, if you read the rest of the Summa COntra Gentiles and the Summa Theologica, Aquinas uses fine logic to demonstrate how this works.
Joe: An argument is supposed to work by itself, without appendices and extras, this is an elementary notion of logic. Saying "a mover exists and that is God" is not consequential. Theologians presumption of being able to establish the origin of the universe by the mere process of thought without empirical evidence is, exactly, presumption, nay a gross presumption, subject to circularity: they always start from unmentioned ungrounded premises: 1) that reality must have had a start (whereas, really there is not any empirical fact that leads to that conclusion, we only have experience of transformation, not of creation from nothing) and 2) that there must be a superior intelligent being. They also presume to be able to list the features of this being. That shows great imagination but this is not a rational way of investigating reality.
Thomas Aquinas, great spirit of his times, could nothing but reflect the conceptions of the cultural and historical setting he lived in, imbued with theology and superstition. He surely did his best, but really establishing that given the "effects" the "cause" and its nature can be demonstrated "a posteriori", and that that cause is exactly God, is an immense leap of imagination, even if I concede that at his times he might not have sounded so.
How could anyone, not conditioned by blind faith, ever think that one can prove the existence of Angels? (as Aquinas presumed he did?). Or talk about "Blessed Trinity" and "Hierarchies of creatures", demons and so on?
Fortunately the times have changed. Fortunately astronomers and astrophisics don't base their investigations on the Summa Contra Gentiles. Fortunately serious philosophers don't talk about Trinity, Angels and Demons anymore.
Jason: Next, perhaps the most basic misstatment of Mr. London is the line "science is the only rational and reliable knowledge." As I pointed out before, such a statement is an "a priori" self-defeating statement because such a statement in itself cannot be proven scientifically and therefore, as Mr. London stated, we must then take the statement to be irrational and not reliable. This logic is elementary. In fact, this was the first thing I learned in my Intro to Philosophy class. Such statements are made so often and they are self-defeating.
Joe: Science does not have a claim of possessing absolute conclusive knowledge. That is the ungrounded claim of faith. But the perfectible notions of science are the best anyone could reach and utilize in that they can be proved by evidence and tested. Drawing consequences from empirical investigation (without leaps) is indeed a rational way of proceeding, the best way possible. That is why serious researchers only rely on the scientific method. Only imaginative practitioners or shamans or magicitians, or perhaps theologicians, might come out saying that the scientific method is not rational.
Jason: Next, Mr. London speaks of how we have improved out knowledge over the years. I agree....to an extent. First, if this is true, then why is it that the vast majority of the population cannot grasp the concept of Aristotelian Metaphysics. These ideas surfaced so long ago and according to Mr. London, it seems that our knowledge should have surpassed this by now. However, to make it clear, I do not have a predjudice against modern science. Modern science has done many great things, I simply want to point out that it is not the only source of truth.
Joe: Well good to know you agree that knowledge has improved.
"Why the majority of people cannot grasp Aristotelian Metaphysics"? you ask. This to me appears a bit of a sophism, even admitting that this be true, it does not represent an evidence of the fact that past philosophies are better than new ones. In your statement I also seem to perceive the old complacency of the familiarity with the beautiful (and 'difficultly' accessible) cathedral of the 'Aristotelian Metahysics', pivot of what you would call the 'probabilistic evidence of the existence of God'. Of course I might be wrong in my perception. In this complacency revives, in my opinion, the priestly tendency to be a privileged mediator of the "Logos" (word and God). Since prehistory, priests were those able to exploit the 'magic of words' to exert power. People might not always grasp Aristotle nowadays, but what is generally connoted negatively, by Catholic hierarchies, as 'secularization' is in actual facts the spreading of culture which raises healthy doubts and the not so obvious acceptance of orthodoxies based on frail, if not inexistent, ground.
However beautiful and fundamental Aristotle might be, surely he (or Aquinas) did not prove the existence of God in an acceptable way. On a side note: I think sometimes priests exploit their classic studies to try to confuse people (a classic example is "Don Abbondio", a character of Alessandro Manzoni. But check also this post of mine: "Some bishops and priests must think people are stupid": that is an example that I will always remember, thanks to DrChrist. An example of an attempt by a Bishop to mentally manipulate and confound people using sophisms. And I think that bishop obviously made up the whole story for that purpose. Pathetic.).
Going back to the points raised, if we talk about scientific truth, or about the understanding of the physical world, modern science surpasses incommensurably old one. If we talk about expressions of the imaginative and/or artistic faculties (poetry, music, theology), there can be some relative human truth of cultural value or psychological interest, that is all.
Jason: Next, Mr. London tries to seperate theology from philosophy. Many modern philosophers do this. However, being that the Church accepts the theology of Aquinas, we also have the philosophy to go with it (because Aquinas was a philosopher).
Next, I want Mr. London to know that I have studied the scientific method and I respect for it. However, in this section, Mr. London failed to comment on the most important statement concerning Episteme and Epistemology. Also, he speaks of the arbitrariness of anything other than science and the scientific method. However, as I have already shown, his basic premise in this argument is dangerously flawed because science cannot prove itself to be the only source of truth.
Joe: Yes, Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, like many philosophers he tried to give the best possible answers. Commendable. But it is a fact that no serious philospher would even mention remotely Angels and Holy Ghosts in our times. That now is relegated in the realm of theology or fantasy (which is pretty much the same, just like we now consider old greek Gods as fanciful mythology).
Your reference to epistemology in your previous set of points was quite vague, and it was not really clear what you were aiming at. However a question regarding epistemology is important as it really deals with the origin, nature and scope of knowledge. It is a fact that people can believe things without them being true, or properly justified to define them as true. In fact there are false beliefs. I think religion falls in the category of false beliefs: it maintains, with no evidence, that knowledge of things is possible through direct contact with a transcendent dimension, and it even pretends to describe features relevant to such a dimension (heaven, hell, God, angels, holy ghosts etc.). It is a fanciful claim that surely has explanations in the psychological features of humans and can be of cultural or ethical interest, but not more than that.
About the scientific method vs. theology: theologicians have all the rights to claim their assertions have equal validity as modern scientific research, but that's simply a claim. With all respect, if Thomas Aquinas could travel in time, he would be refused to speak at any astrophysics' congress on the origin of the universe. Because his assertions are indeed arbitrary, which means they are not based upon empirical evidence, and could not therefore be universally shared by scientists, philosophers and reseatchers, plus are too keen to filling gaps with huge imaginative ungrounded content derived from religious tradition: and such procedure can be defined anything but rigorous.
I think your objection regarding truth is vitiated by your background. Science does not claim to have any absolute truth. But the best one possible ("democratically" testable by anyone) until proved wrong, it is not a truth with strong metaphysical features as those claimed by theologicians. The truth of theologicians is fantasy. Why I say that? Because anyone could contrive a system of thought based on no evidence, and invent imaginary beings. Science fiction writers do that all the time. Moreover, we have seen the same in other religions. Why is that? Different 'transcendental channels' ? Obviously you'd say because others are wrong or not as right. My idea is very simple: they are all claims unless they really prove something. Any balanced, objective, rational person (with no preoccupation of artificially soothing a quest of meaning) should think what theologies say are human words indulging in contrivances, legacy of milleniums of ignorance.
Jason: Next, Mr. London says that the great minds of the past had minds conditioned to the cultural settings of that time. However, I think (and I don't mean this to be rude) that Mr. London has a mind that is formed to the culture of this time and I wonder how this makes him any better than the great thinkers of the past in this regard.
Joe: I don't think this question is at all serious, opportune or useful in the way it is posed. Let's compare Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein with Aquinas. No doubt there is more scientific truth and evidence in the first ones rather than the latter. That said, since culture evolves, current knowledge exists also thanks to old errors and fantasies
"Thanks God", if I open a serious scientific or philosophical magazine or book I won't read of holy ghosts or angels, which were topics of interest at Aquinas' times, when philosophy was still polluted by theology and superstition.
Jason: Next, I still don't understand how motion doesn't entail a mover. When these causal lines occur simultaneously and "per se" and when the movers are moving to move then you do need a first mover. Let me say it again, this causal line doesn't go back through time. Such a causal line is a "per accidens" causal line and Aquinas isn't referring to this. Therefore, Newton compliments Aquinas.
Joe: What I said is simply that given Newton's first law of motion, the simple definition of motion does not entail a mover, therefore an objection could be raised on the way Aquinas articulated that particular argument. However, I also said, following the train of thought that Aquinas actually might have meant, we could ask ourselves what could be the causes for the motions to occur. We could try to regress, and assume that no infinite regression is possible, we could conclude there is an initial cause/mover even, which Aquinas says to be God. But would this be right? What could be the objections?
First, even nowadays physicists are discussing about what happened before the "big bang", and the answer is not obvious. As we all know even time, after Einstein, is something not fixed (which Aquinas could not ever imagine), but is dependant upon mass and energy. Some scientists think that the universe, as we know it, deriving from an accelerating "singularity", might simply be an event preceded by another decelerating universe. Answers are not yet obvious, nobody yet claims to have reached perfect, absolute, conclusive answers. Yet Aquinas, who at his time could not even conceive Einstein's concept of time, not only assumed that the universe necessarily had a start with a first mover, which in itself is a big leap, but he also assumed that this mover must be God, which is an immense leap.
If Aquinas had been a humble man, from a modern scientific point of view, and not a theologian preoccupied to have a nice conclusive picture of reality which includes God, moreover (I concede) if he had the knowledge that fortunately science has reached, if he had modern criteria of scientific method, he would have stopped at a certain point without venturing himself into huge fanciful leaps of imagination and even ending up talking about Trinity, Angels, and Demons. We can appreciate his efforts, from a cultural point of view, but this does not entitle anyone to say that he reached a "100% evidence of the existence of God".
Jason: Mr. London also says that if the world were to rely on only theology, we would still think that the world was flat and that creation occured in seven days. I encourage Mr. London to read the sections of the Catechism concerning the Church's teaching on science. He will discover that the theological teaching of the CHurch is that investigative science has its place in the world and the CHurch respects it (unlike the way Mr. London detests theology).
Joe: I am not sure I have read the sections of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. But I have commented other documents in other occasions. You can read here, where I show some views of the Church that are quite preoccupying, to say the least.
I have also commented elsewhere the Cathechism regarding various points regarding sexuality held by the Church, that are far from being scientific.
Surely the Church has progressed (I would hope nobody really thinks the universe has been created in 7 days, yet many still do!), although it is still captive of superstition, fantasies and pretention of possessing conclusive truth with no evidence.
I don't detest theology, as long as it is given its right value, which surely is not that of science or rationality. I think it is actually fun. Just like any book of mythology.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Other objections on science vs. religion (2)
DrChrist's reader, Jason has replied again (his points are in italics). My reply follow.
Jason: It is clear that you come from the point of view that everything has to be proven for it to be believed. However, I hope you realize that this is your opinion.
Joe: It is not an opinion is a criterion for sound reasoning. If things did not need to be proved I could say I am am Jesus Christ and you would have to believe, since, as you say "not everything needs to be proven". Or I could say I saw a flying elephant and that would not need to be proved either for you to believe it! Come on! This really shows propensity to mythological and fanciful thinking rather than rational thinking. The more religious people come out with such views the less they appear credible and, what's more, they become evidence of how religion is a factor of irrationality and conflict based upon arbitrary claims.
Jason: I put forth and explained in some detail Aquinas' proof for the existence of God and I offered some scientific data in the form of probablistic arguments and showed that there is more than likely a God. However, I conceed that this is not a pure 100% proof.
Joe: A proof that is not 100% proof is not a proof. But the "probabilistic" proof you suggested cannot claim to have any percentange of validity with respect to a conclusion brought forward without real rational necessity. You presented a complexity and the unnecessary, unproved, explanation of its origin. In that your proof reminds of ancient people who thought "given thunder and lightning that I cannot understand, those must originate from the Gods".
As for Aquinas' "proof", however, that is not a proof at all. It is an expression of his own times: he pretended to use reason to prove something, but he made a big leap into fantasy with his thinking. An impressive leap but rationally flawed.
Jason: However, and most importantly, the Church is not based on such things (though I believe they are interesting and they support the Church's teaching). The Church is founded on Jesus Christ (whom historians have never denied there being such a man) and the teaching of the CHurch comes from the apostles who knew Jesus and spent considerable time with him. Jesus taught us about God the Father and he taught the apostles various truths. This is what the Church is based on and these things are very important to the Catholic CHurch. It is understandable, however, how you would have problems with such things. You, being a man who seeks full scientific proof for God's existence will never be satisfied. Moreover, since you seem to detest the notion of faith, it becomes even more difficult to prove things to you.
Joe: I am not questioning the historic reality of Jesus Christ (or Buddha etc.). There have been people with a peculiar and powerful 'religious' message in history, but that really does not prove anything. They were men, bright, often original, possibly geniuses (in the sense of breaking through their times), but this is all we can say.
Of course, science and rational evidence are the opposite of faith that contents itself with mere believing (without evidence) and compliance with what somebody else has said.
You say "Moreover, since you seem to detest the notion of faith, it becomes even more difficult to prove things to you" but really how can you expect to prove things if you don't have any proof? Religion relies on gullibility or irrationality. This sentence of yours is contradictory: you cannot expect to prove things by faith. Rational persuasion and faith are opposites.
Jason: It should also be pointed out that you seem to science as the highest knowledge and this is pure opinion.
Joe: Science is the only rational and reliable knowledge. Writing about God, Angels and Holy Ghosts is not different than writing The Lord of The Kings. But in the latter case, at least the author is aware that his is an invention. That, scientifically speaking, shows mental balance. I don't deny religion can have some validity, but its pretences of absolute knowledge (without evidence) are a grotesque sign of conceit. At least science, 'democratically' says: "hey, things are like this, you can check youself!"
Jason: Moreover, it wasn't until only the past couple hundred years that such and idea surfaced.
Joe: Sure, we tend to improve knowledge, and to possibly find out what is fallacious and what not. Christianity ONLY emerged in the last 2000 years. For millions of years there were other religions. So maybe we should think Christianity is an error because animism has a longer tradition (Christianity is fallacious for other reasons, not certainly for its age). The 'age' of an error does not make it more credible than a young truth.
Jason: I believe (along with many other people) that science is not the highest knowledge. Rather, I believe that the highest knowledge is philisophical.
Joe: Theology is not philosophy. Their paths used to somewhat go parallelly, but separated when it became clear that theological claims are of a different nature and don't have a rational and philosophical validity. How could anyone think theology is a philosophy when everything in it is based upon an unproved premise?
Jason: Aristotle and Aquinas wrote and taught such things. Episteme (as they called it) is the highest knowledge and in Epistemology, one learns what true knowledge is and most people come to the conclusion that it doesn't lie in the corporeal and investigative sciences. Moreover, the scientific method is also a rather modern invention.
Joe: You seem to be a victim of prejudice against the new. Descartes thought that a the human body was simply a robot-like machine and that 'animal spirits' made it alive and that soul and body were connected through the pineal gland: was that better than what we know now? You should deepen and understand the importance of scientific method. Any thinking not based upon the scientific method is dangerously exposed to arbitrariness and fantasy. The scientific method is the only barrier against arbitrariness and unproved statements and fantasies, it is not an invention, it is the consolidation of proper methods of thinking. It is not so young, if you check the link provided (even if 'age' really means nothing, as said above: a young real truth is always better than an old error).
Jason: If you rely upon it, and only it, to be the source of knowledge then you would have to concede that anyone that lived before it was contrived was ignorant (and you may believe that). This also is purely your opinion. I believe that some of the greatest minds came long before this method was conceived.
Joe: They had great minds, no doubt. But their knowledge was conditioned by the cultural setting in which they worked and by what was known at their time. You should understand the importance of cultural and scientific evolution. Humans of year 2000 will appear absolutely ignorant compared to those of year 3000, so what? The fact that some humans might have been great minds in their time does not mean they were always right. Sorry, this statement of yours is completely unnecessary and misleading.
Jason: I also do not understand how Aquinas' argument is flawed and contrary to Newton's law. In fact, I see Newton as being complimentary to Newton. Also, I do not understand how cause and effect are not simultaneous in act. How can something be a cause if at the same time nothing is effected? By definition this seems to be the case.
Joe: It is flawed when he says that the mere observation of motion sugegsts what he says: he did not know that motion does not entail necessarily a mover (Newton 1st law). Moreover it is flawed in his conclusions (existence of God) which is a big stretch to say the least, if not a blindless leap into the welcoming and warm embrace of fantasy.
Jason: To conclude, you seem to scoff at the "unproved" nature of theology in favor of science. However, you must concede that it is purely opinion that science in greater than theology and philosophy because no scientific endeavor can prove science to be greater because it is simply an opinion.
Joe: Theology is the elaboration of fantasy content deemed right without eveidence. It has some utility only in some concepts that can help ethical reflections. Just like good books and art. If people were yet to rely on theology we would still think that the world is flat and not round or that darwinism is wrong and that the world was actually created in seven days. You should understand the difference between a fanciful opinion, or even a hallucination and/or fantasy, and an opinion based on proved evidence.
Jason: Therefore, it becomes evident that while you see science as the greatest knowledge, many people do not agree with that (in fact, I doubt hardly anyone did before the 18th century). Consequently, it once again comes to pass that the basic notions that you and I enter the argument with are starkly different.
Joe: Of course in the past they might not have understood the difference between science and theology. Culture however has advanced, prejudices and errors have been clarified. That is called evolution.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
The Catholic concept of sin and correlation with immaturity or obsessive-compulsive syndromes.
Religious people often claim that if there were not religion, there would not be morality. In their view, religion (and God in the first place) is the foundation of morality, as if there were no relation with a historical/cultural setting.
In actual facts, this idea is a factor of immorality and alienation in that it suggests that morality consists in the mere correspondence to a detailed corpus of external rules (legacy of the past, or formulated by other humans, in the guise of religious hierarchies) rather than in the correspondence to what one believes to be right. In this sense, the so much celebrated individual conscience and free-will is always subject to the constant threat of incurring in a 'sin', so defined by an external authority. Through the concept of 'sin' established by an authority external to the individual, the person's conscience is actually somewhat dispossesed of its own right of exercise.
Example. Suppose I were a Catholic, and I believed in everything, except in a few teachings of the Church. Suppose that I believed that all forms of contraception are acceptable, masturbation is fine and divorce is not sinful. I would be entitled to think that, I have my right of self-determination, my 'coscience', theoretically recognised by the Church. In actual facts, I would be considered by others 'fellow Catholics' or by Catholic authorities (self-appointing themselves as lighthouse of humanity) as in error. At that point, if I insisted with my own views, I would have to face rebukes, condemnation, maybe I would even be refused the Communion. I would be ostracised. All this for the simple fact of having applied what my conscience deems right. On the other hand, if I were erasing my ideas and my own feelings, and obeyed sheepingly and meekly, I would be ok, welcomed, given the communion and so on.
What consequences one can draw from these examples? That the Catholic Church (and some other religions) tend to act as a pre-emptive conscience that pretends to prevail over individual conscience (through mechanisms of threat, moral pressure, ostracisation and so on). In such a way, the individual is really humiliated in his faculties, patronized and reduced to the level of a child.
This cannot by any means considered a form of mature diffusion of morality, nor can the mere sheeping compliance with an external rule, irrespectively of convinction, be considered more moral than the deep conviction of one's behaviour, even if in contrast with what a Church says (St. Paul suggests that conviction matters, and faith should prevail over law itself, but really the practice of the Church tends to make this somewhat irrelevant).
Moreover, the consequence of the actual 'dispossesion' of individual conscience, to privilege mere obedience leads to the spreading of mental immaturity and passivity, in the milder cases, while in the worst cases can give way to severe obsessive compulsive syndromes. A study has pointed out that religious people are more likely subject to compulsion. For instance, it is a fact that St. Thérèse de Lisieux was obsessed by scruples, in a way that really has psychiatric relevance.
Scruples are the expression of a deep conflict between opposite forces: on one hand what the body and one's conscience would suggest, and on the other what an external, somewhat foreign, norm would expect from us. The more the rules are strict, likely to be broken, and unnatural (typical case that of 'impure thoughts' as they are idiotically defined by Catholics, that are simply the natural expression of the inborn sexual drive, or that of masturbation), the more the subject feels weak and exposed to breakage of the rules, and can therefore be attacked by obsessive scruples and compulsions.
The above allows to understand the potential that religion has in creating mental problems and, in milder cases, immaturity and dependant behaviour. A more balanced approach from a Church would be to have firstly an ethical vision that is realistic, that reflects the actual biological humanity and not an inexistent angelic abstraction of it. Secondly, to have an approach tending to really consider the individual as his / her own judge. We are not talking here about the laws of a state that generally find common acceptance (do not steal, murder etc.), we are talking here about other norms given by Churches that refer to acts not considered necessarily wrong by society and by individuals (premarital sex, masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, divorce). It should be stressed, that it is certainly more moral that the individual should act according to his conscience, rather than behave passively, merely complying, unconvincingly, with norms.
A mature, lay, concept of 'sin' should be that by which sin is a behaviour that breaks a sense of interior harmony and balance within the individual (and is perceived as such by the individual himself), rather than the non-compliance with an external norm. Whereas religions, often, contributes substantially to interior unbalance, lack of harmony, unnecessary conflicts, and even severe mental disturbances, obsessions and compulsions (and I am not even going to mention much the sick self-whipping and use of cilice etc. of the Opus Dei). Catholic people should realize that many teachings they are asked to respect reflect absurd, often pathological, views inherited from thousands of years ago, and elaborated by comparatively ignorant people. In such cases, the breakage of a norm is not a sin, a sin would be to follow a norm that does not convince*.
[*Regarding the concept of freedom, conviction, as opposed to coercion, reference can also be found in Saint Paul.
In the Letter to Romans:
4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.12
5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit.
In the Letter to Galatians:
14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. 14:15 For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. 14:16 Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. 14:17 For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 14:18 For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people.
[...]
14:22 The faith you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.
In the light of the above passages, it appears clear that the enforcement of an 'ethical behaviour' through terror, or threat of punishment, is in contrast even with the Christian messages (as stated by Saint Paul): Spirit and Faith freely accepted should be the 'animating principle' of a right behaviour as well as drawing from the example of the one in whom one has faith. It is not the external law that matters: Christians are not supposed to be slaves (ref. also: parts regarding circumcision, fasting, food to eat etc.). This particular aspect appears to be neglected in the current practice of Roman Catholic Church which is ready to condemn, threat, point the finger, evoke Old Testament Divine Wrath and expect compliance without conviction, moreover without being able to give proper example, but rather indulging in hypocritical vainglorious facade of piety and charity despite their own filth.]
Fahreneit 9/11 sets single day sales record in the USA
In the day of its release, Friday 25 June, Michael Moore's 'Fahreneit 9/11' set a single day sales record, even if shown in only 868 theatres, one third of the theatres showing 'White Chicks'.
[Picture and news from the Corriere della Sera]
Follow-up to the previous post regarding the relationship between science and theology.
I received the following reply (in Italics) from DrChirst's reader, Jason, to my answers:
Joe,
I found some time to write......so, I have just a few thoughts.
From the beginning of your response, something very important becomes evident, you see things from a totally different point than I do (obviously). By your statement, "It states, without evidence (apart from Aristotle's opinion which, with all respect possible, does not mean much in itself) that there is a God that is "total" esse." it becomes clear that from the beginning you start with a totally different philosophical ground work. THe Church sees philosophy as the groundwork of theology. Therefore, when your philosophy is so starkly different than ours, it is no wonder why you do not understand nor accept the systematic theology of the Catholic CHurch. By stating that Aristotle's opinion "doesn't mean much" it shows that your philosophy is (what we as Catholic's would say) "twisted." The teleological philosophy of Aristotle that was Christianized by Aquinas is the groundwork of Catholic theology. Therefore, to us Catholics, the opinion of Aristotle and Aquinas means quite a bit. In fact, almost all of Aquinas' philosophy has been accepted as valid teaching by the CHurch. Moreover, Aristotelian Metaphysics is of utmost importance, especially concerning the sacraments and understanding God.
My point in pointing out that we should not try to prove God's existence "a priori" was simply to illustrate that the CHurch (for the most part) does not try to do this. There is an "a posteriori" method that the Church uses in which the world is looked at. Moreover, it is true (and the Church must atest) that God's existence can never be proven totally and surely, 100%. THe reason why this can't be done is for the reasons I pointed out, to do so, would in many ways lower God on the chart of the Metaphysical ascent. God is not corporeal. As one progressses down the Porphyrian tree, different sciences study the different parts of the tree. God, however, being in his own Porphyrian category, cannot be studied by the sciences. Rather, what we know about God, we deduce from Aristotelain and Thomistic Metaphysics. Therefore, in the end, faith has a part to play. Though one may discover from "a posteriori" proofs that the probability of God's existence is great, still, faith will take you the "extra mile" and get you to a total belief. Some people find faith much easier than others. It appears that you see this faith in very negative light, but that is purely opinion.
Next, on your response concerning Aquinas' motion argument, you seem to misunderstand the argument (as most people do). It wasn't until this past year that the argument was properly explained to me. First, Aquinas would concede that it is possible to have a mover-cause causality line "per accidens" to infinity. However, what Aquinas atests is that he sees that it is impossible to have a mover-cause causality line "per se" go to infinity. This is the most important and the most misunderstood premise of the whole argument. Aquinas argues (from empiracal observation and from the sake of definition) that cause and effect are simultaneous in act, meaning that, for example, my fingers type these letters because the muscles over the bones make them move. The muscles mover because my nervous system commands them to do so. My nervous system commands them to do so because chemicals in my brain fire (sorry for the bad biology, but I'm not a biologist). Aquinas would then ask what (or who) made the chemicals in the brain fire and move. They were the first in the corporeal line, but how could they move on their own. This is just a rough example of the proper argument. When most people think of these causal lines, they think of them as going back through time. Aquinas, however, sees them as being simultaneous. All of this happens at the same time.
Next, it is commonly argued that this mover doesn't have to be the Christian God. However, if you were to read the rest of the Summa Contra Gentiles or the Summa Theoligica, you would see how Aquinas says that, yes, this is the Christian God. However, some of this may be hard for you to accept, because Aquinas argues from a teleological, Aristotelian Metaphysical point of view.
To conclude, the reason for the difference in opinion for you, Joe, and for many people in the CHurch and outside of the Church goes all the way back to their philiosophical foundations. The Church sees everything as having a purpose and a proper end goal. If one doesn't see this, it becomes very difficult to come to terms with the teaching of the Church.
I hope this helps a bit.
Jason
My reply:
The point is simply one: theology sets an unproved conclusion from the start (existence of God) around which all facts should revolve, and despite lack of any evidence whatsoever, it claims its views have absolute validity. Conversely science draws conclusion from facts objectively tested. In the first case, since theology starts from unproved statements everything is arbitrary. In the second case there can be common ground for the opinion to be shared. In this respect theology divides, science unites.
Another fact: the only objective thing that can be said about the theological 'a priori' statement of the existence of God is that it is an arbitrary human contrivance (unless it is proved otherwise), not different from even more fanciful contrivances one could come out with, regarding for instance, flying crocodiles (interestingly, past religions were indeed populated by strange, mythological beings; monotheism might appear more mature but not less contrived). Conversely, in the case of science, it can be said that scientific laws are based upon testable evidence, therefore they are not arbitrary.
Schematically:
Theologian: "I possess the truth, and it is absolute and indisputable, even if not based upon evidence and even if it cannot be tested. All facts, and laws, and behaviours should comply with the truth I claim I have." ---> Arbitrary: anybody can have such claims. Opposed arbitrary claims lead to conflicts.
Scientist: "I draw conclusions from facts that anybody can see, and everybody can test my conclusions. Even so, the conclusions are not absolute. They can be considered valid until proved wrong." ---> Reflects objectivity, and expresses views that can be shared.
As also the above outine illustrates, theology (or generaly relying on arbitrariness) is an extremely twisted way of thinking, certainly not science. Religious people should understand this. In fact, when religious people use their lingo ('God, Grace, Holy Ghosts etc.) they surely cannot expect that people do not laugh or simply dismiss them, whereas nobody would say that 1+1 does not make 2.
The above are fundamental differences between theology and philosophy/science. The problem is that if we allow arbitrariness to have value in human communication, then we allow any arbitrariness, potentially even the craziest. Whereas if we allow a common measure of reasonability or rationality, there are more chances for people to understand each other.
This is particularly seen in social policies: you cannot expect that they should be based upon a 'theology', claiming that theology is by definition the measure of 'truth'. That is an arbitrary statement that you cannot expect people to accept, unless you don't respect their right of self-determination (which religious people give up to comply with norms).
Aquinas' 'motion argument' is very flawed, at least in the way he articulated it, not only does it conflict with Newton's Laws, but with its own premises. In fact if we accept that every object has a mover, or even any effect has a cause (but that would not be the motion argument in itself), and that every effect becomes a cause in itself, one would also have to ask who caused the first cause. And if we accept that causes and effects are associated then the 'mover/first cause' would have to be of the same order of the physical world.
But really all this leads to nothing. No Aquinas' theology (or similar) will ever establish scientifically the origin of the world, unless it fully accepts the scientific method by which unproved and untestable statements are unacceptable. But then it would not be theology, it would be 100% science. This is a central point.
A vision of reality cannot be based upon unproved contrivances (if wide acceptance and rational persuasion is expected, rather than a situation of indoctrination). Also, ethics cannot pretend to boost its validity from those very same contrivances. That is very twisted. And I use the term 'contrivances' because of the obstination present in religious people to support their vision, irrespectively of evidence or rationality. A scientific hypothesis or claim would at least have a better status, some vague reference to scientific thinking, and some humility to it, whereas religion pretends to have validity irrespectively of any rational and scientific consideration. It pretends to 'force' persuasion without providing anything substantial upon which to base persuasion. It is, indeed, the epitome of arbitrariness and indoctrination.
In the modern world, any hope of peace and real communication has to dispose of old ways of thinking and arbitrariness. We don't live anymore in the Middle Ages. This is what religious people have to understand. Unless they understand this, they will always be a factor of division and intolerance, and of time wasting. It is absurd that in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnical global reality one expects that the solution for an issue should draw its validity from the Christian Bible. The only validity should be human common sense and rationality (mind you the Bible, being written by humans, reflected some human common sense too, only that of thousands of years ago).
The sad thing is that religious people seem, for the most part, unable to understand these simple concepts (the reason for this would be long to explain, but surely has to do with the 'power' of religion to console and reassure, and with human laziness and consequent reliance on unquestioned external norms).
If religious people were really interested in humanity as a whole, in peace and understanding, they would, paradoxically, have to give up religion instead of maintaing its old structured contrivances. They would have to give up their lingo, which cannot be expected to be a 'universal language'. And of course all religions should do the same. All issues would have to be dealt with from the point of view of common sense and rationality. Nobody could say, comfortably and lazily, 'this is wrong because the bible says it is wrong', but (at best) 'this is wrong because it will cause damages to our society or to people's well-being etc.' And of course, just like in any democracy (and not in theocracies), the majority would determine the laws to tackle the various issues, basing their views on rational considerations rather than mere (often irrational) orthodoxy. This type of thinking is what a modern society needs.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Some objections raised by a reader of DrChirst's blog (1)
A reader of DrChrist, named Jason, has addressed me with some arguments relevant to the existence of God. He also raised some objections on my statemenst regarding the percentage of priests who are sexually active and homosexual, percentage which (on the grounds of some studies) I have often maintained to be very high (around 50%).
I shall here tackle the first part of his points, and dedicate a separate post to the other question.
Jason writes:
"On the matter of science over faith, I refer you to Aristotelian Metaphysics. Metaphysics (Philosophy of Being) will quickly show you why it is that God cannot be proven scientifically. The sciences can only study and demonstrate things that are coporeal. God, being total "esse" and pure "actuality" is not physical because a being who is of such a nature is neither."
My reply:
This statement is interesting but it seems to suggest what follows: "given the existence (or hypothesis) of God, his existence cannot be proved scientifically, since he is not corporeal, therefore his existence cannot be proved". This sounds as a semi-argument used more as a premise for what follows. But even as a semi-argument it has some flaws. It states, without evidence (apart from Aristotle's opinion which, with all respect possible, does not mean much in itself) that there is a God that is "total" esse. This is only an ungrounded circular statement. Saying "there is a God, but given his properties, his existence cannot be proved", counts like saying "there is a flying crocodile, but given its properties (total esse, or even perfection - in the classic ontological argument), his existence cannot be proved. Really the above, philosophically does not have any validity.
And yet, I might consider it almost a premise of what Jason says afterwards.
Jason writes:
"Therefore, scientific endeavors to discover God's existence "a priori" as purely and totaly absurd. The only to show that God exists is to study the world. This approach, "a posteriori", will in many scientific studies show you that it is most highly probabalistic that there must have been a creator. For example, scientists and mathematicians discovered that for the world to have evolved without some sort of overseer and for the world to have developed the way it did by accident is the equivelent of someone shaking up a box of letters and numbers, pouring them out of the box and getting, by pure chance, the New York City phone book (names alphabetically, addresses and phone numbers matching the names) and the person would have to do this three or four times to demonstrate the probability. However, such an argument is still probabalistic. Such arguements put forth by Thomas Aquinas (the Argument from Motion) still baffles people today. If one is to extensively study the argument and understand the logic and the first principles that Aquinas uses and understand each premise totally, a very strong argument is made."
My reply:
Jason says that "scientific endeavors to discover God's existence "a priori" as purely and totaly absurd". But his statement is indeed absurd, in that science has never 'endeavored to discover God's existence 'a priori'. Actually 'a priori' thinking, that is irrespectively of evidence, is absolutely the opposite of scientific thought, which requires that any statement be confirmed by evidence and testable. Therefore the sentence "scientific endeavors to discover God's existence "a priori" as purely and totaly absurd" is useless and, what's worse, misleading.
Let's continue. Jason seems to suggest that the only thing we can scientifically say is that it is 'highly probable that there must have been a creator', on the grounds of a calculation of probabilities. What Jason seems to refer to is the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design", which actually finds little credit amongst scientists and that is only, exactly, a hypothesis, if imaginative. The fact that some people have expressed such a hypothesis does not legitimize to say that "the existence of a creator is scientifically probable". That is a misleading statement.
Moreover, even if the probabilities for the first germ of life to occur were (as they were) very scarce, this in itself does not scientifically entail any valid conclusion. It has never been scientifically established a quantitative threshold passed which a little probability for a phenomenon to occur represents an indisputable evidence for an 'intelligent design'. The hypothesis of Intelligent Design has been rebutted by many philosphers and scientists in a quite conclusive way. Of course, anybody is free to come out with credible, rational, and acceptable arguments to prove it, but it has not yet happened.
Even the National Academy of Science has concluded:
"“[I]ntelligent design . . . [is] not science because [it is] not testable by the methods of science.” (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition 1999, 25)
However Jason concedes that even following the 'design hypothesis' (his example of the NY phone book), the existence of a creator is still 'probabilistic'. He really should not say probabilistic (in that it seems to imply a close possibility which is scientifically fanciful), but let's pass beyond that.
He then mentions Thomas Aquinas' "Motion argument" which substantially states that if one observes an object in motion, that must have been put in motion by a mover, therefore there must be an "unmoved mover" which gives the movement to all, therefore God exists. Of course even accepting this line of thought, it would be hard to see how the 'features' of the 'unmoved mover' could be known - just like it would be hard to understand how one could know the features of an 'intelligent designer'- but this is another story.
Let's, concetrate on Aquinas' argument of motion. The observation of an object in motion does not 'per se' entitle to conclude that the movement has been caused by a mover. According to Newton's First law of motion "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." So really the observation of an object in motion does not necessarily entail the existence of a mover in that we could imagine eternally moving objects. Therefore Aquinas' argument is wrong. However, one could still pose the existence of motion as a problem, if one accepted, unnecessarily, that uniform movement cannot exist without a mover. Even accepting Aquinas' train of thought, however, there is no actual necessity in the conclusion that a hypothetical unmoved mover corresponds to the Christian God, instead of some physical entity/forces or a plurality of entities/forces.
Conclusion:
The paragraphs written by Jason appear to express the effort to quickly rush, even if indirectly, to illegitimate conclusions (existence of God) to explain the unknown: a well-known approach that humanity has followed since thousands of years ago. Human knowledge has greatly increased since the time in which people thought that thunder and lightning were due to some God's rage. And yet much still we don't know. This does not authorize us to keep using the old imaginative mental techniques to fill the gaps of our ignorance. And less than that, we are not authorized to rationally accept that one should derive a whole set of rules/visions (claimed as inspired by a God, without evidence) from unproved hypotheses or fantasies. It is simply a type of reasoning that is irrational and misleading, a delusion and humiliation of our rationality.
The theological systems derived from the primal hypotheses expressed by humans on the world (or its causes) to fill the gaps of their ignorance are simply human words, and in fact they change, subject to time and latitude, just like languages and cultural habits change.
As a consequence, any religious teaching, text etc. should be seen for what it is: a human production liable to error, and subject to the cultural changes brought by time. They might still have some common sense, or a relative ethical validity, hopefully, but they are fallible. We have to take full responsibility in following what makes sense and what doesn't, without relying blindly on words taught by others that have no 'supernatural' validity that can relieve us from the burden of self-determination.
As for what many religions says about the physical world, it can be at best compatible with science, but often it is false and misleading in its mixing old conceptions and fantasies, and is by no means absolute. The only knowledge that can be considered valid is that acquired through the scientific method, which can be tested. And even in this case, even if tested as valid, it is valid only until proved wrong. The rest are contrivances, or at best hypotheses, that, from a scientific point of view, count like any good fantasy book.
US 'abstinence missionaries' try to spread the message in the UK, but are condemned by top health authorities
With faultless arguments, some US supporters ("Silver Ring Thing") of abstinence-only education, which has scientifically been proved ineffective on a social scale, have been condemned by top health officials in Birmingham.
Excerpt from the article from icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk (Birmingham Post)
[...] Dr Jacky Chambers, head of Birmingham's Teenage Pregnancy Partnership, said the American movement would not help solve the city's teen pregnancy problems and could only make it worse.
"Research shows that not only do the majority of young people taking the pledge break it, but that they are less likely to use contraception when they do," she said.
"The risk is that the Silver Ring Thing's messages and approaches might contribute to fear, shame and guilt, which encourage secrecy and make it difficult for young people to take responsibility for their sexual behaviour."
The approach of Birmingham health authorities shows intelligence in dealing with social issues, unbiased by any religious fanatical approach. Bush, and many Christian supporters (like the fellow blogger DrChirst for instance, who has lauded a lot abstinence-only education), should learn what a real social policy should be like: not based on abstract ideas, but on actual behaviours of real people. As it is, abstinence-only 'policy' substantially says: "we don't care if the majority of people are sexually-active, either they are abstinent or we are not going to teach them anything on proper contraception and protection". Anybody with a bit of brain would understand how this cannot be considered a serious policy.
Read the article here.
4% of US priest population (4,392 priests) accused of sex abuse of 10,667 minors
You may have heard about the reports by the National Review Board, commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, on child abuse. They give a horrible picture of what type of people are in the Catholic Church. 4% of priests being abusers is a lot. But one wonders: how many abuses have not actually been filed? Likely many more, since these types of crimes were often kept in silence, especially in the past.
Articles:
The reports:
The report of the National Review Board (PDF)
Companion study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York
Whoever is interested in the actual data, certainly from a 'non-suspicious' source can read the above, and draw their own conclusions. Mine is very simple. "There's something rotten in the State of Catholics".
Some of my previous posts:
Brazil: 41% of priests 'reject' celibacy says Catholic Bishops Association
The causes of sexual abuses by Catholic priests
Further considerations on the correlation between Catholic theology and abuses
Why the Catholic Church is intrinsically sodomitic
Do Catholic priests use condoms or they don't use them because it is a sin? (Considerations on abstinence)
My "stereotypes" on Christians and Catholics
Sex education: the world is not a Catholic parish
An account on the pathogenic action of Catholicism
Does Catholicism rhyme with obscurantism?
The value of critical thinking
DrChrist: “my task is not to live in the past, rather to live in the present”…”the Church wants people to have sex”
Evangelical poverty, in the vision of DrChrist
How handy the Bible: it can be used to justify anything. What does it say about evangelical poverty?
Earlier posts:
The Roman Catholic Church's Sexual Abuse Crisis
Again on Catholics and sex
What vision of the world from Catholic priests?
The pathology of priesthood
Pathological refusal of the corporeal world in the dualistic vision of Catholics
Thursday, June 24, 2004
The way the Vatican deals with abuses
That is how the Roman Catholic Church deals with convicted molesters: it allows them to move somewhere else. The picture shows Rev. Frank Klep, a convicted molester, "doling out candy after Mass in Samoa" as said in the caption of the picture from DallasNews.com, currently covering the scandal of clergy molesters simply moved to other places.
Oh, and you may wonder what happened to Cardinal Law (the cardinal involved in a huge scandal of sexual abuse) ? He has been assigned to a prestigious post in Rome. He is still a Cardinal, and can still vote for the Pope's election.
Further considerations on the correlation between Catholic theology and abuses
In my post titled "The causes of sexual abuses by Catholic priests" (June 19th), I have analysed the causes of sexual abuses by Catholic priests, which in my opinion are intrinsic in the socially-accepted psychosis that goes under the name of Catholicism.
In other words, abuses, priestly clandestine sex and sexual perversions will never stop because Catholic theology is a cause of perversion in its unnatural vision of the world, rejected as sinful in a schizophrenic, dissociated way.
DrChrist, a deacon full of enthusiasm with an excellent skill at dodging objections (which will make him an excellent priest, given the difficulties to match religion with rationality, let alone common sense), wrote a sentence which, in this respect, is emblematic: "we are not made for this world, we are made for heaven, and the only way to get there is to be holy" which really shows how sick and perverted is the Catholic vision of the world, considered in opposition to a contrived heaven and dominated by 'unholiness'. The idea of not being made for this world suggests a fundamental foreignness of humans in the tangible world, which really is a form of alienation.
And yet such alienating views, taught in their school, parishes and other places where the dissociation syndrome is spread, is consistent with Catholic teachings throughout the history of the Church, which reflect a denial (or, more correctly, hidden disgust) of the tangible world, sex and women.
Pope Pius Xi in 1930 would describe procreative marriage in the following way:
"...the very natural process of generating life
has become the way of death
by which original sin is passed on to posterity"
(Castii Connubii).
Which too is emblematic, and actually closely reflects the views of St. Augustine:
"Since, therefore, marriage effects some good
even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory;
but since the good cannot be effected without
the evil, it has reason for feeling shame."
(Chapt. 8 - On Marriage and Concupiscence).
The same St. Augustine who after having lived with a concubine (he is famous for praying God by saying "Grant me chastity and continency, but not yet"), possibly lead a contained life, but only later in his life (in this, similar to many priests nowadays).
Another example of St. Augustine sick, misogynistic ideas, source of much of the psychosis of the Roman Catholic Church, can also be read in passages like the following:
"I feel that nothing so casts down the manly mind
from its heavenly heights as the fondling of woman
and those bodily contacts which belong
to the married state." (Soliloq. i, 10)"
or:
"Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one." (On the Holy Trinity (12, 7, 10)
Basically in the previous passage he says that, when alone, a woman is not the image of God. Whereas a man is.
Pope St. Gregory the Great would explicitly say:
"Sexual desire is absolutely impossible without fault"
The above also allows to understand the obsession for the Virgin Mary assumed in Heaven: a non-woman, an intact angel, ever virgin, not tainted by sex, thus the only model of woman, adored by the clergy, compatible with the misogyny, fundamental gayness and sexophobia of the Roman Catholic Church.
So with these layers of psychosis, dissociation, perverted vision of tangible reality and sex, would anyone (not biased by an indoctrinating upbringing) be surprised by nowaday's abuses? Abusive priests have been fed with a theology of disease and malady, which thwarts human nature and necessarily gives way to perversion.
The process by which the faithful interiorizes a phantasmatic image of God has analogies with the process of identification with the mother that Freud suggests to be the etiology of homosexuality. In both cases there is the emergence of a narcissistic syndrome: the subject remains fixated upon himself, engaging a 'dialogue' with a part of himself identified as 'other'. In both cases the subject blandishes himself with his own fantasies.
Interestingly, according to the classic Freudian theory (which however, cannot be considered a complete explanation of homosexual behaviour) the interiorization of the mother leads to a compulsive search of a mythical phallus. Which surely has a correspondence in the faithful's, often obsessive, religious transport associated to fetishism (objects, icons, 'sacred images', relics of saints) and, often, masochistic behaviour (corporeal mortification, self-whipping, use of cilice etc.).
It is well known that many priests search both a contact with a contrived God and with a mythical phallus. Correlations between mental disturbances, queerness and priestly status have been established by ethnographic studies. The neurotic-psychotic framework is surely present.
Religious people are the epitome of mental onanism. But they even go beyond that: they self-fecundate themselves. Their miserable ego breeds a contrived God. No wonder Catholics have the obsession with the Virgin Mary: they unconsciously identify with her as 'mothers of God'. Just like the Virgin Mary supposedly hosted God in her womb, they give birth and host God in their mind, but not by way of the action of a holy ghost, but by way of action of a holy bulshit (self-deceit). This contrived presence is enough to paint on their faces a pious, if dumb, smile of motherly gratification, which they call 'grace', a sign of their being happy for their psychotic fecundity: "God" is now inside them in a constant reassuring union that makes them 'saved', 'special'.
More news from the world of Catholic black-gowned abusers:
"US Catholic diocese threatens bankruptcy after abuse payouts
A Catholic diocese in Arizona, facing a series of potentially ruinous civil lawsuits that allege sexual abuse by its priests, is preparing to declare itself bankrupt."
You can read the whole article here.
I have extensively expressed my analysis (see my post of June 19th) on the reasons behind this constant flow of abusers from the Catholic Church It is something that is intrinsic in the Roman Catholic Church, a religion that lives on hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. Somebody should do something at a political level to stop their heinous and hideous actions. Their mere presence is a factor of diffusion of madness, psychosis, filth and abuse.
Surely it would be best if people realized that, instead of waiting for all dioceses to close up for bankruptcy due to their huge problems for molestation or abuse of minors.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
More on Bush's anti-scientific, fanatic, money-wasting and dangerous approach on Abstinence-only (Non) Education
More and more people are becoming aware of how Bush's approach on sexual education (which gives priority to a fanatic fundamentalistic agenda rather than science) is to not educate young people at all, but to leave them in a state of dumb ignorance on health issues, dangerously open to STDs and unintended pregnancies, while indoctrinating and terrorising them, and humiliating their rights of self-determination and privacy.
Not only does this approach show utter, if not criminal, ignorance, but it shows a dangerous propensity to privilege ideology over scientific facts, wasting public money while not actually reducing STDs and unintended pregnancies to the extent possible with a comprehensive education.
Here is a list of recent articles on this issue:
New Report Details Money Wasted on Ineffective Abstinence-Only- Until-Marriage Programs; Statement by James Wagoner, President, Advocates for Youth
"For the next fiscal year, President Bush has requested the doubling of funding for these programs to $273 million, bringing the total allocation of taxpayer money for these unproven programs to over one billion dollars since 1998.
The Institute of Medicine, the nation's leading scientific authority, has cited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs as examples of "poor fiscal and public health policy," and the nation's most trusted medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, all support comprehensive sex education - an approach that includes strong messages of both abstinence and contraception.
In addition, a recent analysis from Minnesota shows that its five-year, $5 million initiative to teach teenagers to remain virgins until their wedding night failed to reduce sexual activity, an evaluation of the Pennsylvania Abstinence Education and Related Services Initiative found that the initiative was "ineffective in reducing sexual onset and promoting attitudes and skills consistent with sexual abstinence," and the evaluation of Arizona's abstinence-only-until-marriage program actually caused the governor to refuse to allocate matching state funds for the initiative."
"We know what works. When young people have access to comprehensive and medically accurate information regarding their sexual health, they delay the onset of sexual activity and increase their condom use. It is high time that state and federal lawmakers, including the Bush Administration, stop putting political expediency ahead of the health and well-being of our young people. They need to halt funding for unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that deny young people critical sexual health information, and instead, fund comprehensive programs that work"
Abstinence-only sex education stems from unrealistic policies (June 22, 2004)
Changes urged to sex education (June 21, 2004)
"A new science-based sex-education approach that goes beyond disease prevention or risk-reduction techniques was introduced last week by a group of doctors, researchers and scientists.
The main goal of this type of "integrated sexuality education," said Joe Webb of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, is to get people, communities and societies to live in "optimal sexual health," free from unwanted sex, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and expensive health problems related to risky sexual practices."
Instead of sex education, about 250 Flagstaff Unified School District students will take a class on healthy relationships. (june 15, 2004)
On the Death of Former President Ronald Reagan (June 6, 2004)
"Steven, can you believe that the unholy pact President Reagan and the Republican Party entered with the forces of religious intolerance have not weakened, but grown exponentially stronger? Can you believe that the U.S. government is still bowing to right wing extremists and fighting condom distribution and explicit HIV education, even while AIDS is killing millions across the world? Or that "devout" Christians have forced the scrapping of AIDS prevention programs targeted at HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in favor of bullshit "abstinence only until marriage" initiatives? Or the shameless duplicity of these same forces seeking to forever outlaw even the hope of marriage for gay people? Or that Reagan stalwarts like Buchanan, Bennett and Bauer are still grinding their homophobic axes?"
Effectiveness of abstinence policy for teens debatable (June 5, 2004)
Prophylactics are your friends (May 24, 2004)
"Teen pregnancy in California dropped by 40 percent in the past decade [...].
The national percentage of teen pregnancies dropped by 30 percent in the same period.
California spent nearly $200 million on sex education over the past decade. California's comprehensive education program includes information on contraceptive methods of pregnancy and disease prevention. Federal funding limits the discussion of such methods.
Withholding that information and access is dangerous to the health and social welfare of teens as they grow into adulthood. Federal restrictions on sex education should be lifted to give students the facts, without political spin."
Opposition to Condoms (May 18, 2004)
"The Bush administration's enlightenment on AIDS treatment has not, alas, been matched in AIDS prevention programs. Spurred by the religious right, the administration and Congress have fenced off one-third of the nation's international AIDS prevention funds to be used for abstinence programs starting in 2006, even though such programs alone are insufficient.
The administration is using pseudoscience to justify its decisions."
The faithful expects his words be accepted with grateful stupor as a self-evident truth. He indulges in the narcissistic thrill of the 'magic' power of his own words, also relying perhaps on the effect of his spirited enthusiasm. In any other argument, but the religious one, anybody would be asked to support claims with evidence, but when it comes to religion, the faithful feels exempted from any need of accountability except, perhaps, that of a vague reference to an old book written by humans, full of contradictions and falsities, and open to a vastity of interpretations, claimed as of divine origin.
Interestingly, the faithful relies a lot on 'special effects': magnificent churches, gold and silver displayed, theatrical, farcical solemnity, ridiculous queer vestments with laces and embroideries, images of sacrifices, blood, scourgings, fantasy beings (with or without wings and/or claws), transcendent worlds full of light or darkness: an ante-litteram Hollywood world meant to impress masses of people, prying on their ignorance and on their need of reassurance, a gigantic operation of indoctrination. And of course the actors, from their altars, raising their hands to the sky, surrounding themselves with a halo of early sainthood and little angels (altar boys) and incense, and displaying their flute-singing voices and affected moves, must get a great kick out of the whole thing. But no, they would say, they are only 'means of God'. Truth is, their words count as much as those, mumbled and ignored, of a man staring a wall in a padded room with idiotic fixed eyes.