The Hazards of Belief

robindch

Oops.

Massimiliano Fedriga, leading Italian politician and anti-vaccination campaigner fell ill recently - with chickenpox.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6825653/Italian-politician-leading-anti-vax-figure-hospitalised-chickenpox.html
https://www.corriere.it/politica/19_marzo_15/fedriga-ospedale-la-varicella-governatore-friuli-era-contro-l-obbligo-vaccinale-burioni-bf1a9eb0-4727-11e9-93fb-6bb49234797c.shtml

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.devonlive.com/news/uk-world-news/home-office-tells-asylum-seeker-2669509

The Home Office has highlighted passages from the Bible to prove that Christianity is a violent religion in order to reject a converts application to stay in the UK.

The unnamed Iranian man applied for asylum in the UK saying he had converted to Christianity from Islam.

But an immigration caseworker has shared a letter sent to the man by the Home Office which picks out 'bloodthirsty' Bible passages to counter the man's argument that Christianity is a religion of peace.

The letter includes Old Testament quotes from Leviticus and Apocalyptic texts from Revelations, reports The Mirror .

It then says: "These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a 'peaceful' religion, as opposed to Islam which contains rage and revenge."
...
A spokesman from the Home Office said: "This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith."

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.devonlive.com/news/uk-world-news/home-office-tells-asylum-seeker-2669509

The hazardous belief here being, presumably, stereotypical new atheist critiques of Christianity.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The hazardous belief here being, presumably, stereotypical new atheist critiques of Christianity.

I think the more salient point is below

“The Home Office is notorious for coming up with any reason they can to refuse asylum and this looks like a particularly creative example, but not necessarily a systemic outbreak of anti-Christian sentiment in the department.”

Then sentiment in the UK, as seen in the Brexit vote, would appear to be anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker. I rather doubt religion has much to do with it, and guess that the Home Office would have refused asylum even if the bloke had been an atheist.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think the more salient point is below



Then sentiment in the UK, as seen in the Brexit vote, would appear to be anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker. I rather doubt religion has much to do with it, and guess that the Home Office would have refused asylum even if the bloke had been an atheist.

Look, I think this is basically right. The Home Office assessors will come up with any old specious nonsense to knock back asylum claims.

But for the purposes of this forum, perhaps the salient point is: they were looking for any old specious nonsense to knock back this application, and they found some - the standard new atheist take on Christianity.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I think this is basically right. The Home Office assessors will come up with any old specious nonsense to knock back asylum claims.

But for the purposes of this forum, perhaps the salient point is: they were looking for any old specious nonsense to knock back this application, and they found some - the standard new atheist take on Christianity.

I'd agree that suggesting that a significant proportion of Christians pay much heed to the old testament is indeed specious nonsense. I'd be interested in how you'd support the assertion that this is 'the standard new atheist take on Christianity'. Similarly, what exactly is a 'new atheist' and what standards do you believe these people have in common exactly?

realdanbreen

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree that suggesting that a significant proportion of Christians pay much heed to the old testament is indeed specious nonsense. I'd be interested in how you'd support the assertion that this is 'the standard new atheist take on Christianity'. Similarly, what exactly is a 'new atheist' and what standards do you believe these people have in common exactly?

You ask what exactly is a 'new atheist' ?
The new atheist is the guy who doesn't attend mass (except for funerals/weddings/every now and then to please gran/first communions/confirmations/christenings etc etc)
In fact the new atheist probably attends church almost as often as a regular believer!

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I think this is basically right. The Home Office assessors will come up with any old specious nonsense to knock back asylum claims.

But for the purposes of this forum, perhaps the salient point is: they were looking for any old specious nonsense to knock back this application, and they found some - the standard new atheist take on Christianity.

what exactly is a new atheist?

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what exactly is a new atheist?

Start here.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I think this is basically right. The Home Office assessors will come up with any old specious nonsense to knock back asylum claims.

But for the purposes of this forum, perhaps the salient point is: they were looking for any old specious nonsense to knock back this application, and they found some - the standard new atheist take on Christianity.

the Home Office admitted in the article that whoever wrote the letter went off on a bit of flyer.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the Home Office admitted in the article that whoever wrote the letter went off on a bit of flyer.

Yes. Meaning that even the Home Office, whose critical standards are pretty low, recognises that this is not only specious nonsense, but indefensible specious nonsense.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. Meaning that even the Home Office, whose critical standards are pretty low, recognises that this is not only specious nonsense, but indefensible specious nonsense.

I would entirely agree with you. It is specious nonsense.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Start here.

Thanks. And the assertion that the standard new atheism take on Christianity is that Christians adhere to the old testament?

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

You ask what exactly is a 'new atheist' ?
The new atheist is the guy who doesn't attend mass (except for funerals/weddings/every now and then to please gran/first communions/confirmations/christenings etc etc)
In fact the new atheist probably attends church almost as often as a regular believer!

I think you're confusing new atheists and new Catholics there. What religion do you reckon these types refer to themselves on the census?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree that suggesting that a significant proportion of Christians pay much heed to the old testament is indeed specious nonsense. I'd be interested in how you'd support the assertion that this is 'the standard new atheist take on Christianity'.

Because I come across this, and variations of it, frequently offered by new Atheists.

smacl wrote: »

Similarly, what exactly is a 'new atheist' and what standards do you believe these people have in common exactly?

I've already posted a link to a wikipedia article as a starting point. I'll add this, which is a purely subjective perspective.

It seems to me that what I think of as "classic" atheism is essentially a philosophical stance, and the most prominent spokesmen/examplars have been philosophers. But within about the last twenty years or so we have a different take, emerging from and mostly exemplified by scientists (like Dawkins). One of its characteristics is that it employs the scientific method to critique religious propositions and, you know, there seems to be to be a bit of an unrecognised or unexplored category error going on there.

Often associated with it is an assumption that literalist readings of scripture are normative, and they define authentic Christianity (as opposed to looking at what Christians themselves actually believe and actually do). The Home Office assessment here exemplifies this exactly, hence my comment. It's pretty ironic, because the new Atheists who take this position are togging out intellectually with fundamentalist biblical literalists; they both agree that there's only one authentic way to read a text, and it's the literalist way. And that's kind of axiomatic for both of them.

For the new atheist, this argument takes the form "the bible teaches us that [e.g.] the world was created in 7 days, and we know it can't have been, so the bible must be bogus", or "the bible can't meaningfully be read in a literalist way, so the bible must be bogus". What I have referred to earlier as "classic" atheists would never have advanced these arguments, not only because they didn't share the underlying assumption about the only authentic way to read texts, but also because they could seee that such an assumption is very hard to justify.

One of the reasons, possibly, why new atheists buy into the view is that that is the way scientific texts are read, and if a text isn't capable of being read meaningfully and reliably that way it's no good. And in the same way as they apply the scientific method to non-scientific propositions, they apply scientific reading assumptions to non-scientific texts. I think the basic error may be privileging the scientific method as the dominant method of enquiry in fields where the axioms on which the scientific method rests do not hold good, or are not relevant.

(That's probably more than you wanted to know. It's Friday night here, and I'm off for a beer.)

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Thanks. And the assertion that the standard new atheism take on Christianity is that Christians adhere to the old testament?

No. The point is that the Home Office guy doesn't explore at all what Christians actually believe or actually do. He just treats a simplistic literalist interpretation of the text as normative. Presumably, if you pointed out to him that most Christians neither believe nor practice what his reading of the text suggests they should, his response would be that they're obviously not very good Christians, then.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's pretty ironic, because the new Atheists who take this position are togging out intellectually with fundamentalist biblical literalists; they both agree that there's only one authentic way to read a text, and it's the literalist way. And that's kind of axiomatic for both of them.

While I think you're right about religious fundamentalists doing literal readings, I'm not sure that it's the same for "new atheists" (a loose term whose use doesn't really add much to the discussion, IMHO).

What many on the A+A side of the debate have done is to try to show that literalist readings of religious texts produces nonsense - garbage in, garbage out. Which, in an ideal debating world, would force the literalist to admit that the text itself is nonsense - something which many literalists avoid by claiming that the text is actually metaphorical in some sense, or requires some special insight or other which they they fail to provide.

The issue here is simply that the A+A side, for the sake of argument, take the religious side at their variable word.

realdanbreen

smacl wrote: »

I think you're confusing new atheists and new Catholics there. What religion do you reckon these types refer to themselves on the census?

Well I presume in the secrecy of the census where Nana or the neighbours cannot see them 'these types' put down no religion?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Often associated with it is an assumption that literalist readings of scripture are normative, and they define authentic Christianity (as opposed to looking at what Christians themselves actually believe and actually do).

It is true that the windmill the New Atheists most often tilt at is literalist/fundamentalist Christianity of the sort the average Catholic thinks is stupid, which is one reason I am not a big fan of Dawkins as the Pope of Atheism.

But then, I am a rather Catholic atheist as are many in Ireland, and I regarded literalists as nuts who were not worth arguing with even back when I was a regular Catholic lad.

The situation is a bit different in the USA, where simply getting science into the science curriculum is a struggle with these people in many parts of the country.

Hotblack Desiato

Given the last page or so, I should've posted it in The Funny Side :rolleyes:

lighten up people

The offence-taking at the merest critique of christianity is so reminiscent of t'udder place it's unreal.

The funny/ironic thing imo was that if the asylum seeker in question had claimed to have become an atheist then he'd have had a better chance, given atheists are much more persecuted in the middle east than christians are.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The point is that the Home Office guy doesn't explore at all what Christians actually believe or actually do. He just treats a simplistic literalist interpretation of the text as normative. Presumably, if you pointed out to him that most Christians neither believe nor practice what his reading of the text suggests they should, his response would be that they're obviously not very good Christians, then.

Agreed, but you've just taken one home office guys specious nonsense and said it is typical of group of other unrelated people. You've just carried out the same action that you're disparaging. Even the term 'new atheist' is one that seems primarily applied to others rather than oneself.

Anyhoo, enjoy you beer, few hours left yet on this side of the pond.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Given the last page or so, I should've posted it in The Funny Side :rolleyes:

lighten up people

The offence-taking at the merest critique of christianity is so reminiscent of t'udder place it's unreal.

The funny/ironic thing imo was that if the asylum seeker in question had claimed to have become an atheist then he'd have had a better chance, given atheists are much more persecuted in the middle east than christians are.

Who's taken offence?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.thejournal.ie/newbridge-ash-burns-4541116-Mar2019/

A SCHOOL IN Newbridge in Kildare has written to parents to apologise after an incident where a number of students received burns on their foreheads when being given blessed ashes last week for Ash Wednesday.

The priest who administered the ashes separately wrote to them explaining that it “remains somewhat of a mystery as to why or how this happened”, as he also apologised.

Except this "mystery" was solved five years ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26478900

Mystery burns on worshippers' foreheads at Ash Wednesday church services were caused by a chemical reaction, an Irish priest has said.

Churchgoers in County Cork and Galway city experienced burning after receiving ashes to mark the beginning of Lent.

After people complained of "a burning sensation", the priests brought samples of the ashes for scientific testing to find out what had happened.

It turned out that the leaves were too dry and the ash turned caustic when water was added, according to Monsignor Malachy Hallinan of Westside Parish in Galway.

The priest said he had kept the leaves from Palm Sunday last Easter and stored them in his garage before burning them on a stove.

"It left me with beautiful dry white ash - it was the first time I'd had it so dry, white and clear, like powder.

"When I put the water into it, I thought it fizzed a bit.

"I examined it and didn't find anything wrong, although I didn't put it on my own forehead, which I should have done."

When people attending 10 o'clock Mass at the Church of the Sacred Heart told him they had been burned, he put some ashes in a plastic bag and took it for analysis.

A few hours later, the mystery was solved.

"The material was strongly caustic - the reason for it was total combustion of organic material, where all the carbon material was burned away and all that remained was ash," said Monsignor Hallinan.

"Once this ash is mixed with water, the chemicals react to produce potassium hydroxide and similar caustic material."

He was advised that palms being burned for Ash Wednesday should be "fresh and green" as it burns at a lower temperature and produces ashes much lower in pH.

A similar incident occurred at Newtownshandrum, County Cork, when about 30 parishioners who were burned at St Joseph's Catholic Church had to wash off the ashes in the sacristy.

The ashes were brought to a local hospital for laboratory testing.

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

“remains somewhat of a mystery as to why or how this happened”

A miracle! A miracle!

Hotblack Desiato

OK. Last one today I promise

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/anger-over-pupils-sins-listed-on-artwork-at-mass-claims-it-breaches-gdpr-and-seal-of-confession-37939890.html

A school is discontinuing the practice of having students write their sins on artwork for display at Mass amid claims it breaches privacy, GDPR and the seal of confession.

Children at Cratloe National School, Co Clare, were asked to write their sins on artwork to be displayed at first confession Mass in the local church on March 13.

Around 30 had made a paper cross, each with the child's photograph at its head.

Stretching across the arms of the cross was the word "sorry" in decorative writing completed by the child. The child's sins were written at the shaft of the cross.

They were laminated and had a ribbon to attach them to the end of the pew.

A relative of one of the children said a parent had contacted Fr Richard Keane and requested him not to display the cross made by their child on the night.

"The use of this cross is a breach of the seal of confession, GDPR and privacy rules.

"It was bizarre and inappropriate for children to write their sins on a cross that can be viewed by other people in a church. Naming and shaming sins is medieval.

"The parent was very angry to be faced with the cross after specifically asking the priest not to display it," the relative said.

Fr Keane said he worked in the Marriage Tribunal in Cork on Monday and Tuesdays and due to his busy schedule completely forget to contact the school to pass on the message.

Bizarre, how on earth did they ever think this was appropriate?

Hector Savage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842855/Terrorism-fears-3-000-UK-children-year-jihadi-schools-Pakistan.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-related

Decades of jihad ahead for Europe.

robindch

Hector Savage wrote: »

Decades of jihad ahead for Europe.

Daily Mail in "Daily Mail runs shocker" shocker.

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842855/Terrorism-fears-3-000-UK-children-year-jihadi-schools-Pakistan.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-related

Decades of jihad ahead for Europe.

I think you mean "DECADES of jihad ahead FOR Europe!!! On page 5 we SHOW the pictures our children must NEVER see!!!"

Hector Savage

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you mean "DECADES of jihad ahead FOR Europe!!! On page 5 we SHOW the pictures our children must NEVER see!!!"

Brilliant , point negated completely, it's all 100% false made up nonsense - you're right.

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Brilliant , point negated completely, it's all 100% false made up nonsense - you're right.

Well, it's the Daily Mail, Hector. You can hardly expect us not to take the piss out of it mercilessly, now, can you? In fact, was your point in posting about it not ot highlight the hazards of belief in the Daily Mail as a source of reliable news?