Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

himnextdoor · 29-04-2011 02:10PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Elephant in the room. Why call him God?

Why call it 'Him'?

God is as good a name as any for the first cause.

Morbert · 29-04-2011 02:11PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that it is only empirical science that says we cannot put a non-scientific theory into a set of scientific theories, but if we were doing non-empirical science we could?

You will have to define non-empirical science, as a number of definitions come to mind. I am suggesting that it is empiricism which says we can only know things through our senses, as opposed to deduction or revelation. Science is the practice of making formal inductive statements and performing tests to affirm or falsify those statements under the standards of empiricism.

For the record, I am effectively an empiricist, as I believe any knowledge not gained through the senses, such as mathematics, ethics, etc. is suppositional.

Zombrex · 29-04-2011 02:18PM

Morbert wrote: »

Science is the practice of making formal inductive statements and performing tests to affirm or falsify those statements under the standards of empiricism.

Would you agree that the philosophy that defines what is or isn't science makes certain propositions about the confidence we can have in the accuracy of any particular claim based on how supported the claim is by the scientific method.

If so we are basically saying the same thing, though possibly it is an issue of terminology.

For example I would define "science" not just the practice but the rational behind the practice, so when I say "science says" I don't mean just a conclusion reached by the scientific method, but the philosophy that determines what the scientific method is in the first place.

Ultimately my objection is to the religious idea that the philosophy that underpins the scientific method makes no judgement about the quality of the claims that come about through religious experience or theology.

CerebralCortex · 29-04-2011 03:05PM

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why call it 'Him'?

God is as good a name as any for the first cause.

My point being, that such a being would not worthy of any kind of respect that the religious give to it.

StudentDad · 30-04-2011 09:10PM

If for arguments sake there is a god, trying to put a gender or other definition on such an entity is merely a human definition that by it's very nature limits this being. It lessens it, so that we may better understand. However, this limiting necessarily prevents our ultimate understanding and therefore, trying to understand god is an exercise in futility.

So for me, if there is a god, great! I'm not going to waste my life in futile searching trying to understand something that by definition is beyond my comprehension. Life is far too short.

SD

Fanny Cradock · 30-04-2011 09:37PM

And why do you assume that it is a futile search or that the search is somehow a waste of your time? The whole point of Christianity is that God makes part of himself known to us and that our relationship with him is the most important aspect of our lives.

Robert ninja · 30-04-2011 09:55PM

Christianity is not the only thing saying such things though, Fanny.

Fanny Cradock · 30-04-2011 10:00PM

Did I say otherwise?

StudentDad · 01-05-2011 07:23PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And why do you assume that it is a futile search or that the search is somehow a waste of your time? The whole point of Christianity is that God makes part of himself known to us and that our relationship with him is the most important aspect of our lives.

I have no problem with the concept of a single 'god' or a panoply of 'gods' or whatever variation floats your boat. If a given credo allows an individual to feel safe when they're alone that's fine by me.

Where I draw the line is where a church or cult or other quasi-religious body tries to exert it's influence on the governance of a particular society, be that by using it's influence mould policy and legislation that favour their dogma and use that same unelected influence to prevent legislation or policy that is contrary dogma.

They (the church etc etc) are perfectly entitled to their beliefs and do not have to avail of these things within the market-place of civil society. However, they (religous groupings) do not have the right in my opinion to foist those beliefs on a given society.

SD

Robert ninja · 02-05-2011 03:32PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did I say otherwise?

Nope.

@StudentDad

The only way a religion can remain strong and infuential is by doing all the things you listed it has no right to do.

StudentDad · 02-05-2011 11:03PM

Robert ninja wrote: »

Nope.

@StudentDad

The only way a religion can remain strong and infuential is by doing all the things you listed it has no right to do.

Strong for whom? Those within the church? Society can do without church meddling. I prefer to do my own thinking and the idea that someone in a collar thinks he or she has the right to tell me what to think etc is frankly insulting.

SD

Fanny Cradock · 02-05-2011 11:31PM

Robert ninja wrote: »

The only way a religion can remain strong and infuential is by doing all the things you listed it has no right to do.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Organised religion has the right to a public voice.

StudentDad wrote: »

I prefer to do my own thinking and the idea that someone in a collar thinks he or she has the right to tell me what to think etc is frankly insulting.

SD

Whether done for reasons of self-interest, ideology, moral certitude or whatever, I think every group attempts to promote their agenda - or "dogma", if you prefer. As long as this remains within the law I don't see any grounds for denying somebody this right, especially if the only reason being offered is to avoid personal insult.

On what basis does the insult you feel trump the right of someone in a collar to have a voice in the public square? Presumably you are proposing some radical changes to the constitution?

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 10:17AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Organised religion has the right to a public voice.

Whether done for reasons of self-interest, ideology, moral certitude or whatever, I think every group attempts to promote their agenda - or "dogma", if you prefer. As long as this remains within the law I don't see any grounds for denying somebody this right, especially if the only reason being offered is to avoid personal insult.

On what basis does the insult you feel trump the right of someone in a collar to have a voice in the public square? Presumably you are proposing some radical changes to the constitution?

I don't care what a cleric in a collar says in the public square. However, when a man or woman in a collar tries to influence public policy behind closed doors that's where I feel they have overstepped the mark. If a religious body wants to directly influence govt. policy and legislation - mother and child scheme anyone? - they should get themselves elected!

SD

JimiTime · 03-05-2011 10:27AM

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't care what a cleric in a collar says in the public square. However, when a man or woman in a collar tries to influence public policy behind closed doors that's where I feel they have overstepped the mark. If a religious body wants to directly influence govt. policy and legislation - mother and child scheme anyone? - they should get themselves elected!

SD

So you are against lobby groups as a whole, or just religious ones?

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 11:02AM

JimiTime wrote: »

So you are against lobby groups as a whole, or just religious ones?

I am against unelected pressure groups who feel they have the right to impose their will on society - behind closed doors - especially groups who feel they are above the law and think they can do whatever they like with no accountability for their actions.

If a lobby group wants to hop up and down in the public media that's their choice and their right. That way their aims can be examined by society as a whole.

SD

Fanny Cradock · 03-05-2011 11:32AM

StudentDad wrote:

I don't care what a cleric in a collar says in the public square. However, when a man or woman in a collar tries to influence public policy behind closed doors that's where I feel they have overstepped the mark. If a religious body wants to directly influence govt. policy and legislation - mother and child scheme anyone? - they should get themselves elected!

You didn't answer my questions. Rather, you equivocated and told us about what you feel is the right thing to do.

If you don't care what a cleric in a collar says then why are you getting insulted? If you are talking about what they say in private then by definition you are becoming insulted by something you can't know about.

Organisations have the right to talk to politicians and policy makers in both public and private just like you have the right. You haven't given any reasons why this should change. Nor why it should only apply to ill-defined "pressure groups".

JimiTime · 03-05-2011 12:09PM

StudentDad wrote: »

I am against unelected pressure groups who feel they have the right to impose their will on society - behind closed doors - especially groups who feel they are above the law and think they can do whatever they like with no accountability for their actions.

If a lobby group wants to hop up and down in the public media that's their choice and their right. That way their aims can be examined by society as a whole.

SD

Ok, a lobby group does not have to be lobbying in public. It lobbies government, and does not have to go through media. They are members of the electorate, i.e. citizens, with a common interest who lobby their elected representatives. So are you against lobbying, or just religious lobbies?

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 01:02PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You didn't answer my questions. Rather, you equivocated and told us about what you feel is the right thing to do.

If you don't care what a cleric in a collar says then why are you getting insulted? If you are talking about what they say in private then by definition you are becoming insulted by something you can't know about.

Organisations have the right to talk to politicians and policy makers in both public and private just like you have the right. You haven't given any reasons why this should change. Nor why it should only apply to ill-defined "pressure groups".

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, a lobby group does not have to be lobbying in public. It lobbies government, and does not have to go through media. They are members of the electorate, i.e. citizens, with a common interest who lobby their elected representatives. So are you against lobbying, or just religious lobbies?

I'm a realist I know how the world works ... I just don't have to like it. When influential unelected groups go behind closed doors to lean on govt. to endorse or oppose proposed legislation - it is a distortion of democracy.

If a group has a grievance with current govt. policy or current or proposed legislation it should voice it's concerns publicly.

The idea that someone would have a 'quiet chat' with a govt. minister or public official and the situation would be amended in their favour is frankly disgusting.

SD

Donatello · 03-05-2011 02:09PM

StudentDad wrote: »

The idea that someone would have a 'quiet chat' with a govt. minister or public official and the situation would be amended in their favour is frankly disgusting.

SD

It's not really. Politicians must be held accountable to the law of God, which is infinitely higher than any man-made law. The laws of men ought to comply with the law of God, otherwise, it is no law and need not be obeyed. If they are trying to push legislation which is anti-life or anti-family, they have to be firmly dealt with, whether in public or private, by whomsoever has influence and authority. That may be individual Catholics as well as the bishops.

JimiTime · 03-05-2011 02:25PM

StudentDad wrote: »

When influential unelected groups go behind closed doors to lean on govt. to endorse or oppose proposed legislation - it is a distortion of democracy.

Ok. So being consistent, you don't agree with secular movement lobby groups, gay rights lobby, etc.

If a group has a grievance with current govt. policy or current or proposed legislation it should voice it's concerns publicly.

Most do, but you probably don't look for or see them. I don't think its all secret societies, which is a picture you seem to be painting. There was a petition in my area lately to stop a local shop selling booze. It wasn't in the papers or anything, but it went to the local council. it certainly wasn't a 'distortion of democracy'.

The idea that someone would have a 'quiet chat' with a govt. minister or public official and the situation would be amended in their favour is frankly disgusting.

You seem to be mixing up lobby groups with brown envelope peddlers.

Fanny Cradock · 03-05-2011 03:11PM

JimiTime wrote: »

So are you against lobbying, or just religious lobbies?

This question is worth repeating. I'd like to get an answer to this and the others raised.

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 05:29PM

Donatello wrote: »

It's not really. Politicians must be held accountable to the law of God, which is infinitely higher than any man-made law. The laws of men ought to comply with the law of God, otherwise, it is no law and need not be obeyed. If they are trying to push legislation which is anti-life or anti-family, they have to be firmly dealt with, whether in public or private, by whomsoever has influence and authority. That may be individual Catholics as well as the bishops.

No sorry but 'gods law' as outlined by the RC church has no place in the real world. The notion that church officials seem to think that canon law - written by man - trumps the law of the land is plainly wrong. There should be an absolute division of church and state. The church as an unaccountable institution has no business formulating law or policy.

SD

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 05:35PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok. So being consistent, you don't agree with secular movement lobby groups, gay rights lobby, etc.

Most do, but you probably don't look for or see them. I don't think its all secret societies, which is a picture you seem to be painting. There was a petition in my area lately to stop a local shop selling booze. It wasn't in the papers or anything, but it went to the local council. it certainly wasn't a 'distortion of democracy'.

You seem to be mixing up lobby groups with brown envelope peddlers.

I do not have a problem with lobby groups so long as they are totally open about their aims so that their objectives can be assessed by society as a whole. I do have a problem with a lobby group that would seek to have their views expressed in legislation to the exclusion of other views.

As regards 'brown envelope peddlers' - influence comes in many forms

SD

Donatello · 03-05-2011 06:30PM

StudentDad wrote: »

No sorry but 'gods law' as outlined by the RC church has no place in the real world. The notion that church officials seem to think that canon law - written by man - trumps the law of the land is plainly wrong. There should be an absolute division of church and state. The church as an unaccountable institution has no business formulating law or policy.

SD

You've made a fatal error.

When I say 'God's Law', I am of course referring to the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, given by God Himself, and binding on all men.

Canon Law is merely the Church's internal law and is binding on all Catholics.

MrPudding · 03-05-2011 06:50PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That certainly would be a more interesting area to explore.

Donatello wrote: »

You've made a fatal error.

When I say 'God's Law', I am of course referring to the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, given by God Himself, and binding on all men.

Canon Law is merely the Church's internal law and is binding on all Catholics.

I must have missed the commandment that states "thou shalt not enter into private negotiations with a government minister to limit the amount of money you have to pay in compensation for the harm you caused and, having secured a disgraceful agreement to pay a tiny fraction of the total compensation, then embark on a scheme of asset redistribution to avoid even paying the pitiful amount of compensation you agreed to pay."

MrP

JimiTime · 03-05-2011 06:52PM

StudentDad wrote: »

I do not have a problem with lobby groups so long as they are totally open about their aims so that their objectives can be assessed by society as a whole.

What does it mean to be 'totally open'? Open with those they are lobbying to? The 'so that their objectives can be assessed by society as a whole.' is quite a confusing (or maybe confused?) line. You think anyone who contacts a council, government etc should have to publish their correspondence in some journal or something?

I do have a problem with a lobby group that would seek to have their views expressed in legislation to the exclusion of other views.

Like a pro abortion lobby who wishes to make abortion legal to the exclusion of those who are against it?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are seeking the impossible. 'You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time'. People are going to disagree with certain legislations, whether lobby groups are involved or not.

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 06:56PM

Donatello wrote: »

You've made a fatal error.

When I say 'God's Law', I am of course referring to the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, given by God Himself, and binding on all men.

Canon Law is merely the Church's internal law and is binding on all Catholics.

Error? LOL Binding on all men? Says who? Just because a church thinks the world/universe is structured in a given manner does not give that church the right to impose that belief on reality.

The ten commandments should be adhered to not because 'god' or anyone else said so, but because of their inherently useful intent. Slavish devotion to what it is claimed god or anyone else says is good or bad is an abdication of personal responsibility.

SD

StudentDad · 03-05-2011 06:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

What does it mean to be 'totally open'? Open with those they are lobbying to? The 'so that their objectives can be assessed by society as a whole.' is quite a confusing (or maybe confused?) line. You think anyone who contacts a council, government etc should have to publish their correspondence in some journal or something?

Like a pro abortion lobby who wishes to make abortion legal to the exclusion of those who are against it?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are seeking the impossible. 'You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time'. People are going to disagree with certain legislations, whether lobby groups are involved or not.

It really is quite simple ... just because something is legally available to you does not mean you must absolutely avail of it. If abortion were legalised in the morning those who abhor it need not avail of it. Similarly those who form the opinion that it is a reasoned decision to be made by a mature adult, should not have that decision made for them by those who seek to impose their beliefs on others.

SD

Irish Fire · 03-05-2011 07:04PM

I don't think people are tired of their faith, they are tired of listening to the hell fire and brimstone R.C.C.

JimiTime · 03-05-2011 07:12PM

StudentDad wrote: »

It really is quite simple ... just because something is legally available to you does not mean you must absolutely avail of it. If abortion were legalised in the morning those who abhor it need not avail of it.

The issue with abortion, from a pro life perspective, is that it is defending unborn children, so whether they don't have one themselves, unborn children are still being killed. So again, you disagree with a pro-abortion lobby, as it excludes opposing views?

Similarly those who form the opinion that it is a reasoned decision to be made by a mature adult, should not have that decision made for them by those who seek to impose their beliefs on others.

SD

Its not that simple. A lobby group that opposes the redefinition of marriage for example, can believe that redefining it can lead to a detrimental effect on society etc. So it is having something imposed on them.

It really does seem that you don't like lobbying when you don't agree with it, but would be willing to defend it when you agree with it.

Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

Comments