Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution

[Limper]

Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution

By Philip Pullella Posted Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:00am PDT

A faithful holds the cross during a mass at a Catholic church on the outskirts of Changzhi, Shanxi province December 23, 2007. The Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of 'new' sins such as causing environmental blight. (Stringer/Reuters)
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.

Girotti, in an interview headlined "New Forms of Social Sin," also listed "ecological" offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green."

It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.

Girotti, who is number two in the Vatican "Apostolic Penitentiary," which deals with matter of conscience, also listed drug trafficking and social and economic injustices as modern sins.

But Girotti also bemoaned that fewer and fewer Catholics go to confession at all.

He pointed to a study by Milan's Catholic University that showed that up to 60 percent of Catholic faithful in Italy stopped going to confession.

In the sacrament of Penance, Catholics confess their sins to a priest who absolves them in God's name.

But the same study by the Catholic University showed that 30 percent of Italian Catholics believed that there was no need for a priest to be God's intermediary and 20 percent felt uncomfortable talking about their sins to another person.

(Editing by Keith Weir)


Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication


New sins? Polution is a nice addition but the genetic stuff is just sad.

[Varaj]

Hmmm I sense a plot. :tinfoilhat:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/

[Janos]

New sins? Polution is a nice addition but the genetic stuff is just sad.

With a lot of the cruelty to animals things still not being a sin I think the Polution stuff is pretty dumb. I'd like to see specific details on the genetic stuff, the article on yahoo made it seem like that aspect wasn't as stupid as it could have been by baring all genetic work.

[Eliezer]

Well, silver lining... Churches all over are starting to use the influence of religion to persuade people that caring for the planet is not only the proper moral behavior, but damaging the planet is a sin.

That is a good thing in my mind.

[Limper]

With a lot of the cruelty to animals things still not being a sin I think the Polution stuff is pretty dumb. I'd like to see specific details on the genetic stuff, the article on yahoo made it seem like that aspect wasn't as stupid as it could have been by baring all genetic work.

Put that way it made me think that these new sins may be in opposition to parts of Genesis... guess they will rewrite that chapter at the Vatican 3 conference.

[Eliezer]

With a lot of the cruelty to animals things still not being a sin I think the Polution stuff is pretty dumb. I'd like to see specific details on the genetic stuff, the article on yahoo made it seem like that aspect wasn't as stupid as it could have been by baring all genetic work.

Most Christian churches consider unnecessary cruelty to animals a sin. Medical research and the like are not generally considered sinful no matter how painful it is if there is the potential to some real benefit to be derived from the suffering of the animal and it is not preventable. That's also similar to it's not a sin to cause a human pain during a medical procedure. Intent plays a lot into the "sin" thing.

Problem is with Christianity and animal cruelty is that the life/suffering of an animal can never have the same moral equivalence to a human life/suffering because humans are super-animals, a class apart, and animals exist to provide for humans just like the whole planet.

[Limper]

Problem is with Christianity and animal cruelty is that the life/suffering of an animal can never have the same moral equivalence to a human life/suffering because humans are super-animals, a class apart, and animals exist to provide for humans just like the whole planet.

Its that having a soul thing, it makes us special. Animals don't have souls and thus don't go to heaven or hell... well except for cats, ALL cats go to hell.

[Janos]

Most Christian churches consider unnecessary cruelty to animals a sin.

But do very little to stop mass farming techniques and other practices that are pretty cruel and inhumane. Beating your pet is the only type of animal cruelty I've ever seen the Catholic church really preach against.

Problem is with Christianity and animal cruelty is that the life/suffering of an animal can never have the same moral equivalence to a human life/suffering because humans are super-animals, a class apart, and animals exist to provide for humans just like the whole planet.

So why is polluting a sin, but overfishing isn't? John-Paul made abusing our stewardship a sin close to a decade ago. Coming out and actually saying "polluting is a sin" is nothing more than a grab for media attention and hop on the popular bandwagon these days.

Chopping down thousands of acres of rainforest? Not a sin
Destroying thousands of species from rainforest destruction? Not a sin
Driving a 1967 Mustang? Sin

Factory Farming? Not explicitly a sin
Owning a coal power plant? Explicitly a sin

:rolleyes:

The Vactican has basically hopped on the climate change bandwagon without doing a lot of research. The stated reason is the "threat to mankind from Climate Change". Climate Change is unlikely to prove dangerous to man. It will change our lives, no doubt, but threats to mankind from climate change are the realm of Global Warming fanatics and bad Sci-Fi.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

The Vatican can go fuck itself.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

First, how do they know? Where, when and to whom was the communication from Zeus or Yaweh or whatever deity it is that they pretend to worship? Where the fuck did this all come from except from their own fat asses?

Second, isn't there a contradiction between declaring that we have an obligation to take care of the environment, on the one hand; and banning contraception on the other?

Third, isn't it just a little bit rich for the RC church - which insists on celibacy for its priests (thus guaranteeing problems with repressed sexuality) and which conspired to protect paedophiles in its ranks for decades - to then get all high and mighty about paedophilia, as they apparently do in this new sins statement?

Fourth, haven't they learned by now to stay the fuck out of science? They lose every fucking time and yet they come back for another beating? Are they idiots, or is this a kind of institution-wide act of self-flagellation?

How is it that anybody could grant these people any more moral authority than one would to a circle of astrologers, or a support group of UFO abductees, or people who believe Elvis is still alive, or people who believe 9/11 was an inside job?

And while we're at it, how seriously should we take moral pronouncements from an organisation that teaches people in Africa that condoms are a sin and that they do not prevent the spread of HIV? That's not just stupidity, that's genocidal stupidity.

Yes, yes, I know the Catholic Church had a pivotal role in fighting Communism and that is laudable - but it also had a pivotal role in supporting fascism, so I think that's a wash.

I think its time we held these people to the same standards we hold everybody else to. And by those standards, they deserve to be held up to contempt and ridicule.

Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, are bloody lucky that they have modern Islam to make them look reasonable and benign by comparison.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

First, how do they know?

They don't. End of story.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

They don't. End of story.

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking out of their asses.

Can't we please grow up an face reality here?

To the best of our knowledge:

We are the product of a series of natural processes that neither knew nor cared about us.

Our identities are simply a narrative of our memories kept on the computer in our skulls. When we die, we go to the same place that your year 10 essay went when you disabled auto-save, forgot to manually save and turned off your computer.

We need others. Our identities and narratives of self and beliefs and satisfactions are all constructed through interactions with other intelligent computers like ourselves.

Most of us gain pleasure from seeing others have pleasure and feel pain when others feel pain. Most of us want to live in a world where we can build meanings for ourselves and see others obtain similar satisfaction. Where we conflict, most of us can see that violence is almost always counter-productive in the long term.

Can we please finally just cut the bullshit and start dealing with problems rationally? These bronze age myths are actually starting to get really dangerous...

[Pigs in Space]

Of course they know.

There was burnding bushes that told them.

And inspired all the other authors of the books.

I mean, it's written down for christ's sake.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking out of their asses.

Can't we please grow up an face reality here?

To the best of our knowledge:

We are the product of a series of natural processes that neither knew nor cared about us.

Our identities are simply a narrative of our memories kept on the computer in our skulls. When we die, we go to the same place that your year 10 essay went when you disabled auto-save, forgot to manually save and turned off your computer.

We need others. Our identities and narratives of self and beliefs and satisfactions are all constructed through interactions with other intelligent computers like ourselves.

Most of us gain pleasure from seeing others have pleasure and feel pain when others feel pain. Most of us want to live in a world where we can build meanings for ourselves and see others obtain similar satisfaction. Where we conflict, most of us can see that violence is almost always counter-productive in the long term.

Can we please finally just cut the bullshit and start dealing with problems rationally? These bronze age myths are actually starting to get really dangerous...

I want to say something nasty buy Jesus tells me to hug you instead.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I want to say something nasty buy Jesus tells me to hug you instead.

I want to quote Christopher Hitchens and say "Love your own enemies, don't be loving mine."

But the reality is that the turn-the-other-cheek love of Christianity is one of its loveliest features.

But it's still as kooky as a new aged tarot dealer...

[Eliezer]

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking out of their asses.

Can't we please grow up an face reality here?



I've said this before and I'll probably need to say it again. Do you know what the difference between a teenager and an adult is? Brain development. Their brains aren't finished developing and lack the ability to comprehend certain things. One of them is to associate consequences properly. The other is to apprehend (not comprehend, but apprehend) that others can know things that they can't.

I'll give you an example. I have a brother who was recently married. I had read a marriage book and found it to be wonderfully insightful and useful. I recommended the book to my brother. He read it and got nothing out of it. He couldn't understand what the author was talking about due to a lack of a frame of reference.

Your frame of reference is a strictly materialistic one. There is absolutely nothing in this world that I've found in the realm of science or materialism to support the belief in a spiritual realm. It could all be an artificial construct, an evolutionary quirk. I don't deny that such is possible. But your condescending tone and "facing of reality" smacks of exactly the same problem the teenage immature brain has. You can't apprehend of something beyond your materialistic world, despite the fact that a vast number of humans believe in the a spiritual world. The reality that others may have experienced is simply beyond your ken and you cannot imagine it existing in reality

Yeah, I used to think that way too. Now I'm not so cocksure of the rightness of my own ideas. I'm willing to call people kooks, say that they don't understand reality, especially when it contradicts the material/scientific world. I'm not willing to discount the spiritual perceptions of others so glibly.

I wish I had the firm faith in a world view that you do.

[doc]

Where's "Thou shalt not bone the alter boy" ??

[Limper]

I want to quote Christopher Hitchens and say "Love your own enemies, don't be loving mine."

But the reality is that the turn-the-other-cheek love of Christianity is one of its loveliest features.

But it's still as kooky as a new aged tarot dealer...

I like that last line... fitting.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I've said this before and I'll probably need to say it again. Do you know what the difference between a teenager and an adult is? Brain development. Their brains aren't finished developing and lack the ability to comprehend certain things. One of them is to associate consequences properly. The other is to apprehend (not comprehend, but apprehend) that others can know things that they can't.

I'll give you an example. I have a brother who was recently married. I had read a marriage book and found it to be wonderfully insightful and useful. I recommended the book to my brother. He read it and got nothing out of it. He couldn't understand what the author was talking about due to a lack of a frame of reference.

Your frame of reference is a strictly materialistic one. There is absolutely nothing in this world that I've found in the realm of science or materialism to support the belief in a spiritual realm. It could all be an artificial construct, an evolutionary quirk. I don't deny that such is possible. But your condescending tone and "facing of reality" smacks of exactly the same problem the teenage immature brain has. You can't apprehend of something beyond your materialistic world, despite the fact that a vast number of humans believe in the a spiritual world. The reality that others may have experienced is simply beyond your ken and you cannot imagine it existing in reality

Yeah, I used to think that way too. Now I'm not so cocksure of the rightness of my own ideas. I'm willing to call people kooks, say that they don't understand reality, especially when it contradicts the material/scientific world. I'm not willing to discount the spiritual perceptions of others so glibly.

I wish I had the firm faith in a world view that you do.

Rubbish.

My position doesn't require any faith. Indeed, the essence of my position is a rejection of faith as an epistemologically invalid mode of thought.

All I say is that, on the basis of what we currently know about the world, the metaphysical claims of religions are highly unlikely to be true. Given that is the case, it seems to me that the most appropriate course is to plan our lives based on what seems most likely to be the truth - that this life is all we have, that we are hard-wired for empathy, that we derive pleasure from seeing others safe and happy, etc.

Could I be wrong? Of course. But you can only make decisions on the best information available at the time, and the best information (i.e. science) all points against most of the claims of religion.

Does that mean I deny the reality of spiritual experiences? Hell no. I couldn't - I've actually had one myself. But there is nothing in those experiences that requires one to accept propositions on no or bad evidence. Clearly humans have a need for meaning and community. But that doesn't mean that a carpenter turned amateur rabbi performed miracles, died, rose again 2000 years ago and is going to come back to earth in glory. Maybe he did, but my or anyone else's spiritual experiences aren't evidence of that. And teh historical evidence we do have is laughably thin - hell, the evidence that Jesus actually existed as a real person rather than a myth, let alone performed miracles, is actually remarkably thin once you look at it (though the evidence of his existence probably passes the "balance of probabilities" test).

[Varaj]

Atticus you really should work on saying what you need to say without sounding like a dick. I agree with you much of the time but your presentation makes me grimace.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus you really should work on saying what you need to say without sounding like a dick. I agree with you much of the time but your presentation makes me grimace.

How do you say it another way without being misinterpreted? Being diplomatic with theism is what's gotten us into this mess.

[Atropine Mama]

Atticus you really should work on saying what you need to say without sounding like a dick. I agree with you much of the time but your presentation makes me grimace.

:shock:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

:shock:

Yes, I'm really big. fluffy and friendly, but the children tend to be scared of me. ;)

[Varaj]

How do you say it another way without being misinterpreted? Being diplomatic with theism is what's gotten us into this mess.

You can be straight forward and direct without being hostile. You are hostile and that causes more misinterpretation than being direct, straight forward and not a dick.

When people see somebody as hostile they start to shut down and not fully look at the message. It is a natural part of how the human brain works, they go into fight/flight mode and stop thinking. It is 100% counter productive to your goals and shows you haven't learned the lessons you hurl.

You might try something like this

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking about choices that impact us all without proof.

It would be better for everyone if we based our choices in the world off what can be shown and tested.

To the best of our knowledge:

We are the product of a series of natural processes that neither knew nor cared about us.

We need others. Our identities and narratives of self and beliefs and satisfactions are all constructed through interactions with others, ourselves and the world around us.

Most of us gain pleasure from seeing others have pleasure and feel pain when others feel pain. Most of us want to live in a world where we can build meanings for ourselves and see others obtain similar satisfaction. Where we conflict, most of us can see that violence is almost always counter-productive in the long term.

Can we please finally start dealing with problems rationally? Practical choices made without consideration for the reality of the world has and always will be dangerous...

[GreyOne]

How do you say it another way without being misinterpreted? Being diplomatic with theism is what's gotten us into this mess.
Personality goes a long way. Or sometimes ends up smashed against a brick wall.

[GreyOne]

You can be straight forward and direct without being hostile. You are hostile and that causes more misinterpretation than being direct, straight forward and not a dick.

When people see somebody as hostile they start to shut down and not fully look at the message. It is a natural part of how the human brain works, they go into fight/flight mode and stop thinking. It is 100% counter productive to your goals and shows you haven't learned the lessons you hurl.

You might try something like this

Wow. That makes sense. I'm starting to see things differently for the first time. I'm ready to join the 'reality-based' community now.

:)

[Eliezer]

How do you say it another way without being misinterpreted? Being diplomatic with theism is what's gotten us into this mess.

Exactly. None of them do. All faith-believers are talking out of their asses.

Can't we please grow up an face reality here?

Can we please finally just cut the bullshit and start dealing with problems rationally? These bronze age myths are actually starting to get really dangerous...



Could I be wrong? Of course. But you can only make decisions on the best information available at the time, and the best information (i.e. science) all points against most of the claims of religion.

Does that mean I deny the reality of spiritual experiences? Hell no. I couldn't - I've actually had one myself. But there is nothing in those experiences that requires one to accept propositions on no or bad evidence. Clearly humans have a need for meaning and community.

Maybe it's an issue of presentation, but some of the above statements appear to be at odds with one another in my mind.

But maybe I can reconcile them (trying to understand this here) by saying that you believe that the myths some people believe based on spiritual experiences are rubbish and not reality whereas the different myths that others believe in connection with spiritual experiences is not rubbish?

But then again that brings me back to you judging the validity of them :confused:

[Eliezer]

My position doesn't require any faith. Indeed, the essence of my position is a rejection of faith as an epistemologically invalid mode of thought.


Depending on how you define faith your position is extremely dependent upon faith. The only ways to get around that is to define a particular belief as non-faith based because of a weight of evidence or to define faith as inherently irrational.

I chose to define faith as my motivational force when I don't know perfectly what will happen. I put my car key in the ignition of my car to start it in the morning based on a faith that the car will start. I do this despite the fact that I am fairly certain (based on thermodynamics) that the car will cease to function and will not start one morning.

Yes, I know, you define faith as explicitly irrational. Makes me wonder if most of your ranting is just straw man ranting.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Maybe it's an issue of presentation, but some of the above statements appear to be at odds with one another in my mind.

But maybe I can reconcile them (trying to understand this here) by saying that you believe that the myths some people believe based on spiritual experiences are rubbish and not reality whereas the different myths that others believe in connection with spiritual experiences is not rubbish?

But then again that brings me back to you judging the validity of them :confused:

Huh?

Go mediate or take LSD or fast or run until you're totally exhausted or focus on a really hard problem fully for a very long time or contract temporal lobe epilepsy or do any number of other things and, if you're lucky, you'll have a transformational spiritual experience. Hell, about 80% of the population can be induced into having a profound mystical experience by Michael Persinger's trans-cranial stimulation device.

But that says nothing about virgin births, or creators of the universe or resurrections or the human personality's survival of death.

These experience are real and desirable and worth exploring - but we do them and ourselves a massive disservice when when surround them with unscientific metaphysical bullshit.

It's that bullshit that turned the experience of Mohammed in that cave and Jesus in that desert into the travesties that are Islam and Christianity. Both those guys were almost certainly on to something, if only they'd had the tools not to smother it in crap.

I suppose that's the truly remarkable thing about the Buddha. Despite living in a culture as drenched in metaphysical bullshit as any other, he managed to mostly avoid fucking up the fruits of his profound mystical experience and even managed to promulgate a doctrine that, at its core, seems to make a lot of sense and to actually dovetail quite well with the insights of modern neuroscience and modern psychology. Sure there's a lot of bullshit added on in later decades (cough-reincarnation-cough) and even teh core has some bullshit - but man is it clean in comparison to its competitors.

Go read some Sam Harris: Mysticism is or can be a rational enterprise. Theism, on the current evidence, is not.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Depending on how you define faith your position is extremely dependent upon faith. The only ways to get around that is to define a particular belief as non-faith based because of a weight of evidence or to define faith as inherently irrational.

I chose to define faith as my motivational force when I don't know perfectly what will happen. I put my car key in the ignition of my car to start it in the morning based on a faith that the car will start. I do this despite the fact that I am fairly certain (based on thermodynamics) that the car will cease to function and will not start one morning.

Yes, I know, you define faith as explicitly irrational. Makes me wonder if most of your ranting is just straw man ranting.

Double huh?

Your conclusion that your car probably will start tomorrow is based on your memory that your car has worked fine in the past, your memory that you filled the tank recently and haven't driven very far and your understanding of modern automobile mechanics. That's more than enough evidence to support the conclusion that your car will probably start when you put the key in the ignition tomorrow. (Unless you have reason to believe you're memory is fucked up or that someone's messed with your car, etc)

But what is your belief that you will probably survive your death based on? Where's the evidence? Where's the science? On what basis do you support that probability assessment?

Where's the evidence for the belief that Jesus died and rose again? If reports written by bronze aged disciples decades after teh event are enough, why shouldn't we believe the miracles of Satha Sai Bab, which are attested to by hundreds of thousands of western educated people? Why is it that bronze aged miracle stories written decades after the events they purport to depict are seen as a legitimate basis on which to organise one's life but the miracle stories of Sai Baba don't even rate an hour on the Discovery Channel?

Unless you're some kind of wacky post-modernist (cough-Stanley Fish-cough), your position makes no sense.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Jesus told me that Atticus doesn't exist.

[Eliezer]

Huh?
Lots of Atticus ranting that I finally got through to find something rational


Ah, so that's the distinction I was missing: Mysticism and Theism.

Thanks for the clarification. That removes the apparently at odds statements.

[Eliezer]

Double huh?

Your conclusion that your car probably will start tomorrow is based on your memory that your car has worked fine in the past, your memory that you filled the tank recently and haven't driven very far and your understanding of modern automobile mechanics. That's more than enough evidence to support the conclusion that your car will probably start when you put the key in the ignition tomorrow. (Unless you have reason to believe you're memory is fucked up or that someone's messed with your car, etc)

But what is your belief that you will probably survive your death based on? Where's the evidence? Where's the science? On what basis do you support that probability assessment?

Where's the evidence for the belief that Jesus died and rose again? If reports written by bronze aged disciples decades after teh event are enough, why shouldn't we believe the miracles of Satha Sai Bab, which are attested to by hundreds of thousands of western educated people? Why is it that bronze aged miracle stories written decades after the events they purport to depict are seen as a legitimate basis on which to organise one's life but the miracle stories of Sai Baba don't even rate an hour on the Discovery Channel?

Unless you're some kind of wacky post-modernist (cough-Stanley Fish-cough), your position makes no sense.

Funny how my position makes no sense to you.

Faith, as I define it, has nothing whatsoever to do with theism or mysticism. It deals with identifying how humans operate in a world where so much is unknown. All faith is rational (or should be) in the sense that it should be built upon experience, memory, expectation of outcomes or even a willingness to trust another persons experiences. (i.e. To clarify on the trusting another person, we frequently rely upon what happens to others to determine what is likely to happen to us.)

Theistic faith, or faith in theistic principles, should follow the same rational as all other faith. If you pray to "god" and it helps you face the world, provides comfort, provides some benefit then you can conclude that prayer to "god" can be helpful. If you pray inconsistently over the course of many years and notice the difference between the days you do and don't pray or the times in your life that you have or have not prayed you may come to some very strong faith based conclusions about prayer. Whether this experience is based upon some circuitry in the brain being activated and providing the benefit and the exact same benefit could be derived from other non-theistic activities, nonetheless the benefit is derived.

If rituals associated with a theistic religious order provide some comfort or perceived benefit then naturally there would be an inclination to persist in those practices.

If following a person who heads your theistic religious order and provides counsel that you have in the past found helpful and beneficial then you are more likely to give credence to them in the future.

If the teaching that life persists after death or that sins (things for which we feel bad) can be put into a state that we no longer feel bad about them or the teaching that there is a "god" that wants us to be kind to one another provides some comfort, stability, social cohesion, mental fortification against the vicissitudes of life then you are likely to find that such teachings are beneficial and thus have faith in them.

Atticus, statements like "they don't know" or "they can't know" denies a pretty significant reality that many people experience. Most people will state it very differently, but if the practice of Christian teachings or exercise of religious rituals provide some level of comfort and stability to a person then there is a direct benefit that gives them an experiential basis for believing what they do.

Your argument that people should "grow up" and "move beyond" these myths into a more rational approach to the world is a great idea that appeals to your sensibilities, but don't delude yourself. Your ideas are faith based in exactly the same way that many theists beliefs are faith based. You claim a superiority in your ideas because of your philosophical stance on materialism. That's a great claim, but in the absence of absolute knowledge, you exercise faith in your world view.

[Ascarel]

All faith is rational (or should be) in the sense that it should be built upon experience, memory, expectation of outcomes or even a willingness to trust another persons experiences.

Sorry, but this is the most amazing sentence I've seen in a while. You actually equate rationality with subjectivity, do you realize that? :puzzled:

[Varaj]

Sorry, but this is the most amazing sentence I've seen in a while. You actually equate rationality with subjectivity, do you realize that? :puzzled:

According to how I understand the words (and m-w.com seems to back my understanding) his statement holds. Perhaps you are using rationality in a different way. What does it mean to you?
On a side note: I wonder if it is a French language vs English language thing. The other time I've seen confusion over the word has been a from a native French speaker.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational
1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasonable
1 a: being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b: not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c: moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d: inexpensive2 a: having the faculty of reason b: possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): sanity b: the sum of the intellectual powers3archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction

[Eliezer]

Sorry, but this is the most amazing sentence I've seen in a while. You actually equate rationality with subjectivity, do you realize that? :puzzled:

Why would you not be rational with that which you perceive? It would seem quite unusual to not treat your perceptions in a rational way... :confused:

In my mind the biggest problem with theism is that many practitioners substitute rationality for blind obedience. That is a huge problem, but not all theists do that and many particular religions preach against that idea.

[Ascarel]

On a side note: I wonder if it is a French language vs English language thing. The other time I've seen confusion over the word has been a from a native French speaker.

Ah..... yeah.... Crap. It must be that. :sigh: I checked a couple of dictionaries on both "sides", and you are probably right. To me, and in French in general I observe, rational is first and foremost related to meaning 2a of rationalism in the Webster:

2 a: a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions

Throughout history, philosophers have constantly pitted raison (reason) as logic and methodical thinking against feelings and subjective experience.
In this sense, faith is completely irrational (you can say that without judging it negatively).

Bottom line:

:footinmouth:

[Dacke]

The Vatican can go fuck itself.
I think they consider that a sin too.

[Name Lips]

Religion/mysticism and science/logic/rationalism, in my mind, simply don't mix. They don't explain the same things. They don't serve the same purpose. You can't use one to prove, disprove, or explain the other.

Which is why it's so upsetting when people try to re-write science (and also reality itself) to fit their religious views. It's also disturbing to me to see people try to find scientific explanations for spiritual and religious things (like the ludicrous "theory" that certain wind conditions can create a passage in the Red Sea).

Don't mix the two.

[Eliezer]

Religion/mysticism and science/logic/rationalism, in my mind, simply don't mix. They don't explain the same things. They don't serve the same purpose. You can't use one to prove, disprove, or explain the other.

Which is why it's so upsetting when people try to re-write science (and also reality itself) to fit their religious views. It's also disturbing to me to see people try to find scientific explanations for spiritual and religious things (like the ludicrous "theory" that certain wind conditions can create a passage in the Red Sea).

Don't mix the two.

Both deal with the same question. How do we explain what we don't know.

Science is based upon an extremely successful and powerful set of philosophical tools for processing what we can know and how to achieve that knowledge. I support the philosophy of natural materialism that allows the scientific method to work.

Religion/Mysticism... well, suffice it to say that not everything that has come from this source has been entirely fruitful or useful. Despite it's limitations, some very important issues arising from human nature are not well addressed by science.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

How can the usefulness of a belief have anything to do with its truth?

[Eliezer]

How can the usefulness of a belief have anything to do with its truth?

Perhaps that is an unfounded assumption on my part that a belief that accurately reflects truth would generally be more useful than a belief that is contrary to truth.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Perhaps that is an unfounded assumption on my part that a belief that accurately reflects truth would generally be more useful than a belief that is contrary to truth.

Then it would seem you have missed many of the harsher lessons of science these past three centuries...

"Wishful thinking" is not a term of abuse in science for nothing.

[Eliezer]

Then it would seem you have missed many of the harsher lessons of science these past three centuries...

"Wishful thinking" is not a term of abuse in science for nothing.

You totally lost me on that one...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You totally lost me on that one...


As, it would apepar, did the Enlightenment.

[Eliezer]

As, it would apepar, did the Enlightenment.

You can't argue with my explanations and so you have to resort to ad hominems.

I think that perhaps you have narrowed your views a little to far and your myopia may be the one operational here.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You can't argue with my explanations and so you have to resort to ad hominems.

I think that perhaps you have narrowed your views a little to far and your myopia may be the one operational here.

[Sigh]

Step 1: Calm down.

Step 2: Go back and re-read your psots and my repsones earlier in teh thread. Notice how you totally missed my point.

Step 3: Go "D'Oh!"

Step 4 (optional): apologise.

Step 5: resume productive conversation.

I'll be here when you do.

[Varaj]

[Sigh]

Step 1: Calm down.

Step 2: Go back and re-read your psots and my repsones earlier in teh thread. Notice how you totally missed my point.

Step 3: Go "D'Oh!"

Step 4 (optional): apologise.

Step 5: resume productive conversation.

I'll be here when you do.

Atticus it certainly seems to me that you aren't addressing his post and attacking him as a person instead of addressing it.
Almost as bad as when you asked me a direct question and ignored my answer to it. :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus it certainly seems to me that you aren't addressing his post and attacking him as a person instead of addressing it.
Almost as bad as when you asked me a direct question and ignored my answer to it. :D

His post was irrelevant as it didn't address anything I was talking about. His rather snitty misunderstanding to the contrary is what has made me point and laugh.

As to your answer to my question, I must have missed it: What question? What answer?

[Varaj]

His post was irrelevant as it didn't address anything I was talking about. His rather snitty misunderstanding to the contrary is what has made me point and laugh.

Sometimes it seems to me you get caught up on what you believe instead of what is real. It appears that every one of his posts is relevant and the only one that is throwing a tantrum in here of late and being snitty is you.


As to your answer to my question, I must have missed it: What question? What answer?

Your question.
http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=35894&postcount=21

My answer.
http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=35897&postcount=24

[Eliezer]

[Sigh]

Step 1: Calm down.

Step 2: Go back and re-read your psots and my repsones earlier in teh thread. Notice how you totally missed my point.

Step 3: Go "D'Oh!"

Step 4 (optional): apologise.

Step 5: resume productive conversation.

I'll be here when you do.


Hmm, appears then that there was a major miscommunication here. It could have happened for several reasons and it could have been me, however, I suspect it's you in this particular case. You seem to frequently get frustrated with people not understanding what you are posting about a lot and then blame the other for not understanding. I suspect it's you not understanding or even trying to understand other points of view. You're so convinced of the superiority of your thinking and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong that you don't even bother to process what they say. It's a common human frailty. This willful ignorance on your part is allowing you to sit unchallenged upon your supposed summit of superiority.

So, when you want to actually open your mind and discuss things and try to understand other people get back to me.

[Rappaccini's Daughter]

Jesus, guys, take it to the off-campus bar or keep it to the subject at hand. :what: