mother theresa

[tleilaxu]

...not sure why the new's outlets are making a big deal out of this. it's been known before now. anyway, just wanted to post this article. let me know what you think.

executive summary: mother theresa occasionally doubted that god existed and has no spiritual or emotional connection to god.


Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."

Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.

And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week break in 1959 — never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" Says the Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America and the author of My Life with the Saints, a book that dealt with far briefer reports in 2003 of Teresa's doubts: "I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented." Recalls Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light's editor: "I read one letter to the Sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity], and their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to the way people understand her."

The book is hardly the work of some antireligious investigative reporter who Dumpster-dived for Teresa's correspondence. Kolodiejchuk, a senior Missionaries of Charity member, is her postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials. (Thus far she has been beatified; the next step is canonization.) The letters in the book were gathered as part of that process.

The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. Teresa's may be the most extensive such case on record. (The "dark night" of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45 years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John's context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early 1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work. Kolodiejchuk produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act.

Two very different Catholics predict that the book will be a landmark. The Rev. Matthew Lamb, chairman of the theology department at the conservative Ave Maria University in Florida, thinks Come Be My Light will eventually rank with St. Augustine's Confessions and Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain as an autobiography of spiritual ascent. Martin of America, a much more liberal institution, calls the book "a new ministry for Mother Teresa, a written ministry of her interior life," and says, "It may be remembered as just as important as her ministry to the poor. It would be a ministry to people who had experienced some doubt, some absence of God in their lives. And you know who that is? Everybody. Atheists, doubters, seekers, believers, everyone."

Not all atheists and doubters will agree. Both Kolodiejchuk and Martin assume that Teresa's inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn't there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work. But to the U.S.'s increasingly assertive cadre of atheists, that argument will seem absurd. They will see the book's Teresa more like the woman in the archetypal country-and-western song who holds a torch for her husband 30 years after he left to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returned. Says Christopher Hitchens, author of The Missionary Position, a scathing polemic on Teresa, and more recently of the atheist manifesto God Is Not Great: "She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself." Meanwhile, some familiar with the smiling mother's extraordinary drive may diagnose her condition less as a gift of God than as a subconscious attempt at the most radical kind of humility: she punished herself with a crippling failure to counterbalance her great successes.

Come Be My Light is that rare thing, a posthumous autobiography that could cause a wholesale reconsideration of a major public figure — one way or another. It raises questions about God and faith, the engine behind great achievement, and the persistence of love, divine and human. That it does so not in any organized, intentional form but as a hodgepodge of desperate notes not intended for daylight should leave readers only more convinced that it is authentic — and that they are, somewhat shockingly, touching the true inner life of a modern saint.

[Jesus:] Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? ... You have become my Spouse for my love — you have come to India for Me. The thirst you had for souls brought you so far — Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse — for me — for souls? Is your generosity grown cold? Am I a second to you?
[Teresa:] Jesus, my own Jesus — I am only Thine — I am so stupid — I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish — as You wish — as long as you wish. [But] why can't I be a perfect Loreto Nun — here — why can't I be like everybody else.
[Jesus:] I want Indian Nuns, Missionaries of Charity, who would be my fire of love amongst the poor, the sick, the dying and the little children ... You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?
— in a prayer dialogue recounted to Archbishop Ferdinand Perier, January 1947
On Sept. 10, 1946, after 17 years as a teacher in Calcutta with the Loreto Sisters (an uncloistered, education-oriented community based in Ireland), Mother Mary Teresa, 36, took the 400-mile (645-km) train trip to Darjeeling. She had been working herself sick, and her superiors ordered her to relax during her annual retreat in the Himalayan foothills. On the ride out, she reported, Christ spoke to her. He called her to abandon teaching and work instead in "the slums" of the city, dealing directly with "the poorest of the poor" — the sick, the dying, beggars and street children. "Come, Come, carry Me into the holes of the poor," he told her. "Come be My light." The goal was to be both material and evangelistic — as Kolodiejchuk puts it, "to help them live their lives with dignity [and so] encounter God's infinite love, and having come to know Him, to love and serve Him in return."

It was wildly audacious — an unfunded, single-handed crusade (Teresa stipulated that she and her nuns would share their beneficiaries' poverty and started out alone) to provide individualized service to the poorest in a poor city made desperate by riots. The local Archbishop, Ferdinand Périer, was initially skeptical. But her letters to him, preserved, illustrate two linked characteristics — extreme tenacity and a profound personal bond to Christ. When Périer hesitated, Teresa, while calling herself a "little nothing," bombarded him with notes suggesting that he refer the question to an escalating list of authorities — the local apostolic delegation, her Mother General, the Pope. And when she felt all else had failed, she revealed the spiritual topper: a dramatic (melodramatic, really) dialogue with a "Voice" she eventually revealed to be Christ's. It ended with Jesus' emphatic reiteration of his call to her: "You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"

Mother Teresa had visions, including one of herself conversing with Christ on the Cross. Her confessor, Father Celeste Van Exem, was convinced that her mystical experiences were genuine. "[Her] union with Our Lord has been continual and so deep and violent that rapture does not seem very far," he commented. Teresa later wrote simply, "Jesus gave Himself to me."

Then on Jan. 6, 1948, Périer, after consulting the Vatican, finally gave permission for Teresa to embark on her second calling. And Jesus took himself away again.

Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated

In the first half of 1948, Teresa took a basic medical course before launching herself alone onto the streets of Calcutta. She wrote, "My soul at present is in perfect peace and joy." Kolodiejchuk includes her moving description of her first day on the job: "The old man lying on the street — not wanted — all alone just sick and dying — I gave him carborsone and water to drink and the old Man — was so strangely grateful ... Then we went to Taltala Bazaar, and there was a very poor woman dying I think of starvation more than TB ... I gave her something which will help her to sleep. — I wonder how long she will last." But two months later, shortly after her major triumph of locating a space for her headquarters, Kolodiejchuk's files find her troubled. "What tortures of loneliness," she wrote. "I wonder how long will my heart suffer this?" This complaint could be understood as an initial response to solitude and hardship were it not for subsequent letters. The more success Teresa had — and half a year later so many young women had joined her society that she needed to move again — the worse she felt. In March 1953, she wrote Périer, "Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started 'the work.'"

Périer may have missed the note of desperation. "God guides you, dear Mother," he answered avuncularly. "You are not so much in the dark as you think ... You have exterior facts enough to see that God blesses your work ... Feelings are not required and often may be misleading." And yet feelings — or rather, their lack — became her life's secret torment. How can you assume the lover's ardor when he no longer grants you his voice, his touch, his very presence? The problem was exacerbated by an inhibition to even describe it. Teresa reported on several occasions inviting a confessor to visit and then being unable to speak. Eventually, one thought to ask her to write the problem down, and she complied. "The more I want him — the less I am wanted," she wrote Périer in 1955. A year later she sounded desolate: "Such deep longing for God — and ... repulsed — empty — no faith — no love — no zeal. — [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction — Heaven means nothing — pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything."

At the suggestion of a confessor, she wrote the agonized plea that begins this section, in which she explored the theological worst-possible-case implications of her dilemma. That letter and another one from 1959 ("What do I labour for? If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true") are the only two that sound any note of doubt of God's existence. But she frequently bemoaned an inability to pray: "I utter words of Community prayers — and try my utmost to get out of every word the sweetness it has to give — But my prayer of union is not there any longer — I no longer pray."

As the Missionaries of Charity flourished and gradually gained the attention of her church and the world at large, Teresa progressed from confessor to confessor the way some patients move through their psychoanalysts. Van Exem gave way to Périer, who gave way in 1959 to the Rev. (later Cardinal) Lawrence Picachy, who was succeeded by the Rev. Joseph Neuner in 1961. By the 1980s the chain included figures such as Bishop William Curlin of Charlotte, N.C. For these confessors, she developed a kind of shorthand of pain, referring almost casually to "my darkness" and to Jesus as "the Absent One." There was one respite. In October 1958, Pope Pius XII died, and requiem Masses were celebrated around the Catholic world. Teresa prayed to the deceased Pope for a "proof that God is pleased with the Society." And "then and there," she rejoiced, "disappeared the long darkness ... that strange suffering of 10 years." Unfortunately, five weeks later she reported being "in the tunnel" once more. And although, as we shall see, she found a way to accept the absence, it never lifted again. Five years after her Nobel, a Jesuit priest in the Calcutta province noted that "Mother came ... to speak about the excruciating night in her soul. It was not a passing phase but had gone on for years." A 1995 letter discussed her "spiritual dryness." She died in 1997.

Tell me, Father, why is there so much pain and darkness in my soul?
— to the Rev. Lawrence Picachy, August 1959
Why did Teresa's communication with Jesus, so vivid and nourishing in the months before the founding of the Missionaries, evaporate so suddenly? Interestingly, secular and religious explanations travel for a while on parallel tracks. Both understand (although only one celebrates) that identification with Christ's extended suffering on the Cross, undertaken to redeem humanity, is a key aspect of Catholic spirituality. Teresa told her nuns that physical poverty ensured empathy in "giving themselves" to the suffering poor and established a stronger bond with Christ's redemptive agony. She wrote in 1951 that the Passion was the only aspect of Jesus' life that she was interested in sharing: "I want to ... drink ONLY [her emphasis] from His chalice of pain." And so she did, although by all indications not in a way she had expected.

Kolodiejchuk finds divine purpose in the fact that Teresa's spiritual spigot went dry just as she prevailed over her church's perceived hesitations and saw a successful way to realize Jesus' call for her. "She was a very strong personality," he suggests. "And a strong personality needs stronger purification" as an antidote to pride. As proof that it worked, he cites her written comment after receiving an important prize in the Philippines in the 1960s: "This means nothing to me, because I don't have Him."

And yet "the question is, Who determined the abandonment she experienced?" says Dr. Richard Gottlieb, a teacher at the New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute who has written about the church and who was provided a copy of the book by TIME. "Could she have imposed it on herself?" Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves. Gottlieb notes that Teresa's ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. Both he and Kolodiejchuk are fascinated by her statement, "I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before." Remarks the priest: "That's a kind of daring thing to say." Yet her letters are full of inner conflict about her accomplishments. Rather than simply giving all credit to God, Gottlieb observes, she agonizes incessantly that "any taking credit for her accomplishments — if only internally — is sinful" and hence, perhaps, requires a price to be paid. A mild secular analog, he says, might be an executive who commits a horrific social gaffe at the instant of a crucial promotion. For Teresa, "an occasion for a modicum of joy initiated a significant quantity of misery," and her subsequent successes led her to perpetuate it.

Gottlieb also suggests that starting her ministry "may have marked a turning point in her relationship with Jesus," whose urgent claims she was finally in a position to fulfill. Being the active party, he speculates, might have scared her, and in the end, the only way to accomplish great things might have been in the permanent and less risky role of the spurned yet faithful lover.

The atheist position is simpler. In 1948, Hitchens ventures, Teresa finally woke up, although she could not admit it. He likens her to die-hard Western communists late in the cold war: "There was a huge amount of cognitive dissonance," he says. "They thought, 'Jesus, the Soviet Union is a failure, [but] I'm not supposed to think that. It means my life is meaningless.' They carried on somehow, but the mainspring was gone. And I think once the mainspring is gone, it cannot be repaired." That, he says, was Teresa.

Most religious readers will reject that explanation, along with any that makes her the author of her own misery — or even defines it as true misery. Martin, responding to the torch-song image of Teresa, counterproposes her as the heroically constant spouse. "Let's say you're married and you fall in love and you believe with all your heart that marriage is a sacrament. And your wife, God forbid, gets a stroke and she's comatose. And you will never experience her love again. It's like loving and caring for a person for 50 years and once in a while you complain to your spiritual director, but you know on the deepest level that she loves you even though she's silent and that what you're doing makes sense. Mother Teresa knew that what she was doing made sense."

I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness — for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus' darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a 'spiritual side of your work' as you wrote — Today really I felt a deep joy — that Jesus can't go anymore through the agony — but that He wants to go through it in me.
— to Neuner, Circa 1961
There are two responses to trauma: to hold onto it in all its vividness and remain its captive, or without necessarily "conquering" it, to gradually integrate it into the day-by-day. After more than a decade of open-wound agony, Teresa seems to have begun regaining her spiritual equilibrium with the help of a particularly perceptive adviser. The Rev. Joseph Neuner, whom she met in the late 1950s and confided in somewhat later, was already a well-known theologian, and when she turned to him with her "darkness," he seems to have told her the three things she needed to hear: that there was no human remedy for it (that is, she should not feel responsible for affecting it); that feeling Jesus is not the only proof of his being there, and her very craving for God was a "sure sign" of his "hidden presence" in her life; and that the absence was in fact part of the "spiritual side" of her work for Jesus.

This counsel clearly granted Teresa a tremendous sense of release. For all that she had expected and even craved to share in Christ's Passion, she had not anticipated that she might recapitulate the particular moment on the Cross when he asks, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The idea that rather than a nihilistic vacuum, his felt absence might be the ordeal she had prayed for, that her perseverance in its face might echo his faith unto death on the Cross, that it might indeed be a grace, enhancing the efficacy of her calling, made sense of her pain. Neuner would later write, "It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus' passion." And she thanked Neuner profusely: "I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness. "

Not that it didn't continue to torment her. Years later, describing the joy in Jesus experienced by some of her nuns, she observed dryly to Neuner, "I just have the joy of having nothing — not even the reality of the Presence of God [in the Eucharist]." She described her soul as like an "ice block." Yet she recognized Neuner's key distinction, writing, "I accept not in my feelings — but with my will, the Will of God — I accept His will." Although she still occasionally worried that she might "turn a Judas to Jesus in this painful darkness," with the passage of years the absence morphed from a potential wrecking ball into a kind of ragged cornerstone. Says Gottlieb, the psychoanalyst: "What is remarkable is that she integrated it in a way that enabled her to make it the organizing center of her personality, the beacon for her ongoing spiritual life." Certainly, she understood it as essential enough to project it into her afterlife. "If I ever become a Saint — I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven — to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth," she wrote in 1962. Theologically, this is a bit odd since most orthodox Christianity defines heaven as God's eternal presence and doesn't really provide for regular no-shows at the heavenly feast. But it is, Kolodiejchuk suggests, her most moving statement, since the sacrifice involved is infinite. "When she wrote, 'I am willing to suffer ... for all eternity, if this [is] possible,'" he says, "I said, Wow."

He contends that the letters reveal her as holier than anyone knew. However formidable her efforts on Christ's behalf, it is even more astounding to realize that she achieved them when he was not available to her — a bit like a person who believes she can't walk winning the Olympic 100 meters. Kolodiejchuk goes even further. Catholic theologians recognize two types of "dark night": the first is purgative, cleansing the contemplative for a "final union" with Christ; the second is "reparative," and continues after such a union, so that he or she may participate in a state of purity even closer to that of Jesus and Mary, who suffered for human salvation despite being without sin. By the end, writes Kolodiejchuk, "by all indications this was the case with Mother Teresa." That puts her in rarefied company.

If this brings You glory — if souls are brought to you — with joy I accept all to the end of my life.
— to Jesus, undated
But for most people, Teresa's ranking among Catholic saints may be less important than a more general implication of Come Be My Light: that if she could carry on for a half-century without God in her head or heart, then perhaps people not quite as saintly can cope with less extreme versions of the same problem. One powerful instance of this may have occurred very early on. In 1968, British writer-turned-filmmaker Malcolm Muggeridge visited Teresa. Muggeridge had been an outspoken agnostic, but by the time he arrived with a film crew in Calcutta he was in full spiritual-search mode. Beyond impressing him with her work and her holiness, she wrote a letter to him in 1970 that addressed his doubts full-bore. "Your longing for God is so deep and yet He keeps Himself away from you," she wrote. "He must be forcing Himself to do so — because he loves you so much — the personal love Christ has for you is infinite — The Small difficulty you have re His Church is finite — Overcome the finite with the infinite." Muggeridge apparently did. He became an outspoken Christian apologist and converted to Catholicism in 1982. His 1969 film, Something Beautiful for God, supported by a 1971 book of the same title, made Teresa an international sensation.

At the time, Muggeridge was something of a unique case. A child of privilege who became a minor celebrity, he was hardly Teresa's target audience. Now, with the publication of Come Be My Light, we can all play Muggeridge. Kolodiejchuk thinks the book may act as an antidote to a cultural problem. "The tendency in our spiritual life but also in our more general attitude toward love is that our feelings are all that is going on," he says. "And so to us the totality of love is what we feel. But to really love someone requires commitment, fidelity and vulnerability. Mother Teresa wasn't 'feeling' Christ's love, and she could have shut down. But she was up at 4:30 every morning for Jesus, and still writing to him, 'Your happiness is all I want.' That's a powerful example even if you are not talking in exclusively religious terms."

America's Martin wants to talk precisely in religious terms. "Everything she's experiencing," he says, "is what average believers experience in their spiritual lives writ large. I have known scores of people who have felt abandoned by God and had doubts about God's existence. And this book expresses that in such a stunning way but shows her full of complete trust at the same time." He takes a breath. "Who would have thought that the person who was considered the most faithful woman in the world struggled like that with her faith?" he asks. "And who would have thought that the one thought to be the most ardent of believers could be a saint to the skeptics?" Martin has long used Teresa as an example to parishioners of self-emptying love. Now, he says, he will use her extraordinary faith in the face of overwhelming silence to illustrate how doubt is a natural part of everyone's life, be it an average believer's or a world-famous saint's.

Into the Light of Day

Please destroy any letters or anything I have written.
— to Picachy, April 1959
Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa's rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was "I want the work to remain only His." If the letters became public, she explained to Picachy, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."

The particularly holy are no less prone than the rest of us to misjudge the workings of history — or, if you will, of God's providence. Teresa considered the perceived absence of God in her life as her most shameful secret but eventually learned that it could be seen as a gift abetting her calling. If her worries about publicizing it also turn out to be misplaced — if a book of hasty, troubled notes turns out to ease the spiritual road of thousands of fellow believers, there would be no shame in having been wrong — but happily, even wonderfully wrong — twice.

[/quote]
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

[Kwalish Kid]

Why don't people give a shit about her keeping poor people down? Hospice care is nice, but interfering in social justice is criminal.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think Christopher Hitchens put it best, Mother Theresa was not a friend of the poor, she was a friend of poverty.

She was a particularly egregious example of a rather unattractive tendency of some forms of Christianity, and in particular many forms of Catholicism, to fetishise suffering as a kind of real life passion play of the Crucifixion.

No wonder she's sometimes called the "Ghoul of Calcutta".

[Northcott]

She was a particularly egregious example of a rather unattractive tendency of some forms of Christianity, and in particular many forms of Catholicism, to fetishise suffering as a kind of real life passion play of the Crucifixion.

Did you, by any chance, actually read the article in question? The one right above, in this thread?

It raises new and interesting questions. You're presuming a religious motivation for her behaviour a mere two posts after an article about how her faith had fallen apart early on, and was never entirely intact again.

I'm starting to question whether or not the woman was in her right mind for most of that time. Some of the text of that article seems to point out that she may have been in a state of severe depression for an indeterminate amount of her ministry in Calcutta.

If (and that's a big if) her initial actions were as altruistic as described -- before she had funding, an organization behind her, or a place to house her mission -- to be found out in the streets tending to the poor when and where she could, and in what limited fashion she may have been capable of, we have a different picture when contrasted with the later issues that came up. She speaks of despair having set in swiftly... and really, in such circumstances, that seems not only plausible but entirely human.

Was she then somebody who suffered a form of depression through the greater balance of her life? It would certainly seem to fit with her behaviour; the sense of distance, maintaining a mask so other people don't know how you've fallen, seeming non-responsiveness on an emotional level, etc. If this is the case, then the greater crime may lay in the hands of her superiors, who seem to have heard a cry for help time and time again from this woman and refused to grant her aid beyond spouting convenient platitudes.

Either way, it's all bloody sad.

[Ancalagon]

Did you, by any chance, actually read the article in question? The one right above, in this thread?


I have very little faith that the discussion this thread *could* be about (the nature of faith etc) will occur instead of what this discussion *will* be about (Mother Teressa is an evil bitch therefore there is no God).

Ancalagon

[mollygrue]

I have very little faith that the discussion this thread *could* be about (the nature of faith etc) will occur instead of what this discussion *will* be about (Mother Teressa is an evil bitch therefore there is no God).

Ancalagon
It happens that I am reading two biographies abt M. Teresa :

Mother Teresa the authorized biography by Navin Chawla
Such a Vision of the Street Mother Teresa -The Spirit & The Work. E. Egan

I read a lot of biographys--esp. those about women who had an impact-for good or for ill--on the world.

From my current and past reading, it seems to me that Mother Teresa was a relatively normal human being--and thus it is only natural to assume that she would have what is commonly called a "crises of faith" often reffered to as "the long dark night of the soul". It is a common experience within any belief system--be it religious, political, or socio-emotional.

I guess I do not understand why everyone seems so shocked about this "revelation". Who among us has not had doubts about their choices in life? Who has not had doubts about their chosen path ?

As to depression-we know that many of the most accomplished and self-actualizing people in the world struggled mightly with it: A. Lincoln, W. Churchill, and E. Roosevelt come to mind.

I think it would be interesting to contemplate and discuss the nature of belief--belief in a system or in an ideal, and how this belief can motivate someone against tremendous odds . ( without placing value judgement on the particular results)

What gives the individual the faith , in themselves or in their cause, to accomplish their goal? Why does this "fire" burn some and not in others?

I am going up north for the weekend -- I look forward to reading everyones input when i get back. I was very impressed by the discussion on the the bible and on the nature of god, and the discussion of the soul. This should be interesting.

[Northcott]

I guess I do not understand why everyone seems so shocked about this "revelation". Who among us has not had doubts about their choices in life? Who has not had doubts about their chosen path ?

What's to understand? She's a candidate for sainthood in the Catholic faith -- this is a position that, for all intents and purposes, proclaims the person the equivalent of a demi-god. Saints are held up to standards that most mortals simply don't touch upon, and it's expected that miracles can be performed in their name after death.

So on one hand we have the idea that she may have neglected her duties and allowed people to suffer unecessarily. On the other we have the notion that she spent much of her life, and most if not all of her mission, not even sure as to whether or not she believed in the God she was supposedly serving.

The idea that a person should become clinically depressed from being immersed in such a terrible environment isn't beyond the pale, and in such a light it might explain the lack of response she had to the suffering around her, being mostly shut down herself. This is all well and good for Jane or Joe Average -- but a saint is held to a higher standard.

However, her cannonization was fast-tracked by her dear friend, Pope John Paul II, and that fast-tracking continues.

[Ancalagon]

I was thinking about this...

How many of us who believe can strongly feel the presence of God? Have a genuine religious experience? I don't know about you, but I can't feel God on a whim. And I'm guessing that's the norm amongst believers (I feel fortunate that I have felt it a very few rare times).

So in a way... Teresa didn't "lose" God, but rather returned to the norm...

[Varaj]

I'm not a fan of MT, but a lack of faith or at least heavy doubts isn't bad for a sainthood in my mind. Put me in the, "not a big deal" camp.

[strawberry]

I'm not a fan of MT, but a lack of faith or at least heavy doubts isn't bad for a sainthood in my mind. Put me in the, "not a big deal" camp.

I agree. There was an article about this in our local paper that made it sound like she spent pretty much her whole life in a crisis of faith, which I thought was very sad for her personally. But I don't think that diminishes her or her suitability for sainthood. As I understand it, being a saint doesn't actually mean you are or were perfect.

[Northcott]

I agree. There was an article about this in our local paper that made it sound like she spent pretty much her whole life in a crisis of faith, which I thought was very sad for her personally. But I don't think that diminishes her or her suitability for sainthood. As I understand it, being a saint doesn't actually mean you are or were perfect.

No, but one's connection to God is germaine to the issue. That's why they're making such a big deal out of it. Her supporters will spin it as her faith having triumphed in the end, enduring Job-like tests until she's given her eternal reward in Heaven, etc. The Devil's Advocate (though I don't think they've used that official title in years) will, of course, pound on the obvious issue: that if she didn't have faith, she was not true to God in her heart, and thus is not a proper candidate.

I'd be somewhat amazed if they even touched on the financial issues. :(

[strawberry]

No, but one's connection to God is germaine to the issue.

Maybe I won't explain this well, but to me it seems like a demonstration of almost pure faith to keep going despite at times losing that feeling of connectedness.

[Northcott]

Maybe I won't explain this well, but to me it seems like a demonstration of almost pure faith to keep going despite at times losing that feeling of connectedness.

Yep, I'd agree... and that's what her advocate will put forth. The Devil's advocate will point out that she didn't just lose faith at times, but spent a great portion of time, in her own words, without faith (perhaps even having lost it entirely) -- and explicitly named herself a hypocrite. He'll likely also draw into question whether or not her faith was ever restored.

Then they'll try and use the presence of miracles acheived through MT's intercession to prove that her faith was, indeed, restored and/or rewarded in the end.

The notion is not that the church names or makes somebody a Saint, really -- they believe that there are saints that the Church has failed to recognize. Saints are, after all, made in Heaven, and the Church is an earthly agency (though, yes, they trip on that point all the time). In the end, the presence of miraculous intervention will be the real kicker. If people can produce miracles acheived through prayer to MT, and the investigators can find no rational or scientific grounds to dismiss said miracles, then that pretty much seals the deal. After all, who are they to dispute Heaven's judgement?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

As the article makes clear, her experience is quite normal. The length of time is unusual, but it's probably down to the lack of support given to her by the Church hierarchy for much of her career.

""If I ever become a Saint — I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven — to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth"

Was anyone else thinking "bodhisattva" at this point?

If JPII and co. knew all this, then it's no wonder they fast-tracked her. She truly is a saint for our times.

Ed: the "devils advocate" role was abolished by JPII, but Christopher Hitchens was formally asked to testify against Mother Teresa during her beatification (an unusual measure, I understand). Incidentally, Mother Teresa had enormous faith, even when (especially when) she didn't believe she did. She got up every day and acted as if Christ was Risen. That's faith.

[Northcott]

Backtrack a little for me, Rich -- I'm sleep deprived. All-nighter for work.

Had enormous faith even when she didn't believe she did? Isn't the heart of faith one's belief? How can we say somebody has held onto faith when they claim that they aren't even sure that they believe in the diety they supposedly have faith in?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Had enormous faith even when she didn't believe she did? Isn't the heart of faith one's belief? How can we say somebody has held onto faith when they claim that they aren't even sure that they believe in the diety they supposedly have faith in?

Faith isn't simply belief. Faith is belief in action. Faith is acting as if the claims of a particular belief are true even if, and especially if, you're not certain that they are. Because belief waxes and wains; only a fanatic has that level of certainty all of the time.

The opposite of faith isn't doubt; the opposite of faith is fanaticism

It's like the difference between romance and love. Romance fades; making a marriage work is hard.

[Northcott]

I think that's where I end up departing in thought; I see that as perseverence on one side, or on the other, somebody so horribly, painfully lost in the miasma of what surrounds them that they trudge on simply because that's all they've got left. Like somebody caught up in depression that lives a shell of their normal life, not because they necessarily choose to, but because to do so is the path of least resistence, and they don't have enough strength left to make a change.

To me that's not faith. That's somebody that is in desperate need of help.

[strawberry]

I think that's where I end up departing in thought; I see that as perseverence on one side, or on the other, somebody so horribly, painfully lost in the miasma of what surrounds them that they trudge on simply because that's all they've got left. Like somebody caught up in depression that lives a shell of their normal life, not because they necessarily choose to, but because to do so is the path of least resistence, and they don't have enough strength left to make a change.

To me that's not faith. That's somebody that is in desperate need of help.

Well I think it could go either way. On on hand, it could be a sad, desperate person who trudges on because they don't see a choice. On the other hand, it could be someone who has faith and trust that there really is something greater than what their puny human perceptions just aren't seeing at the moment (or for years and years ;)).

[Northcott]

Well I think it could go either way. On on hand, it could be a sad, desperate person who trudges on because they don't see a choice. On the other hand, it could be someone who has faith and trust that there really is something greater than what their puny human perceptions just aren't seeing at the moment (or for years and years ;)).

And if she says explicitly that she does not have such faith?

I think this is precisely the path that her superiors took, and those around her. They were so in awe of this woman that they had on a pedestal that they took repeated cries for help as hallmarks of remarkable faith. I think she would have been far better off if they'd gotten her the Hell out of there and straight into therapy for a few years.

On a side note: Was anybody else slightly wierded out by MT's visions of Jesus and her perception of what he wanted? My eyes bugged out when I read the quotes where she described the vision/conversation that set her off on her mission, and her subsequent angst over a feeling of abandonment/distance from the divine -- she made him sound like an abusive boyfriend or husband.

"Listen, baby, you're really a worthless waste of flesh -- but because I love you, I'm gonna give you another chance. If you do a good job with this, you'll make me look good, and that's what you really want, isn't it baby?"

I mean, that was some really harsh shit. Contrast that with the way the Bible records Christ. That good-vibe "God loves all his special flowers" message is a damned far cry from what she described.

...

...Huh. Maybe I should have been the Devil's Advocate. ;)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

And if she says explicitly that she does not have such faith?

Did she say that? I'm posting in a hurry and I haven't re-read the article

I think she would have been far better off if they'd gotten her the Hell out of there and straight into therapy for a few years.I agree

On a side note: Was anybody else slightly wierded out by MT's visions of Jesus and her perception of what he wanted?

Not really. It's pretty standard fair for a mystic; they probably only selectively quoted the icky stuff. If you start getting close to the Divine you tend to feel rather insignificant. And you go a bit mad. Think of it like Cuthulu with a beard instead of tentacles

[mollygrue]

it seems to me that anyone faced with what she dealt with--what ever her motivation for doing the work she did- would go stark raving bonkers pretty damn fast: I did a great deal of active vounteer work for a long long time--and being close to the pain of others can be devastating to ones own sense of well being, and lead to a lot of questions that keep you awake at night.

for me, the worst part was being able to do so little. its like trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. teresas words--that it may not be possible to accomplish the big things, but it is possible to do little things with great love---, were an inspiration and comfort to me.

Why she was doing it, and her emotional condition while doing it was probably not as important to the people that she helped, as the fact that she was doing it. And i cannot fathom how she was able to face the situation day after day for several decades--let alone turn her work into a world wide project. 160 M.o C units-how does one individual accomplish that?


since my beliefs do not include the traditional sainthood concept, whether she qualifies or not is something of a moot point idealistically for me --i agree strongly with strawberry re the 'something greater' statement.

i dont think one even has to necessarily belive in the 'something greater' in order to believe in the work one is doing. we admire Schindler for the risks he took and the lives he saved--despite being a very "human" human being.

i am not actively religious, but was raised by a strict methodist grandmother, and her people were " roll up your sleeves and get out there and do GOOD WORKS" christians, not given to philosophical debates. lesson fm book of Matthew ( 25: 34-36) kjv was seen as a directive, pure and simple.

M.T. was and is a subject of controversy--but as i understand it, she saw a problem, decided something should be done, and being unable to change a socio-political-economic condition, she dealt witht he problem in a hands on way, in accordance with her belief system to the best of her ability.

My first x was catholic, but i did not convert. i understand but do not agree with many beliefs and practices of the faith ( birth control being a big problem area). so i do not agree with MT's basic orientation--but i admire the hell out of the good she was able to accomplish--and i do believe she did good things.

and i do believe in doing good things, on a strictly pragmatic level.
it is very difficult to effect postive social change--how does one manage to that? how does one individual have the vision to persevere?

its the same question i had before. W. Churchill was plagued by "the black dog" as he called depression--but he was an inspiration to the western world.
how does one manage to rise above, see the bigger picture, embrace a vision, live a faith--when the daily demands and realites of coping keep getting in the way?

As I mentioned I have been reading the bios, and am not seeing anything new there--her story is pretty well known--I brought up the fact that i was reading about her to an e-friend in india (boy just starting college) and he seemed suprised that i even knew about her: he thought of her as a strictly indian phenomenon. famous yes, but not someone i would be familiar with or interested in.....perception is a strange creature.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Not really. It's pretty standard fair for a mystic; they probably only selectively quoted the icky stuff. If you start getting close to the Divine you tend to feel rather insignificant. And you go a bit mad. Think of it like Cuthulu with a beard instead of tentacles

Whoops, as has been pointed out privately, "tend to" should have been "can". Positive experiences are much more common, but just about every Christian mystic who's recorded their experiences has mentioned the Dark night of soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_night_of_the_soul). I haven't studied non-Christian mystics in detail, but I'd be surprised if they haven't come across something similar. The Abyss in the Thelemic tradition looks kind of similar - at least to this right-hander! [1]


([1] note to anyone familiar with Crowley's works - this was supposed to be a joke)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The below is a pice from Christopher Hitchens - [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20497111/site/newsweek/]link[/link]. In addition to writing a highly unsympathetic biography of MT, The Missionary Position, he was also invited by the Vatican to fulfil the (now usually unused) role of devil's advocate against her beatification.

Teresa, Bright and Dark
by Christopher Hitchens, Newsweek

Aug. 29, 2007

The publication of Mother Teresa's letters, concerning her personal crisis of faith, can be seen either as an act of considerable honesty or of extraordinary cynicism (or perhaps both of the above). These scrawled, desperate documents came to light as part of the investigation into her suitability for sainthood; an investigation conducted by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who is the editor of this volume. And they were actually first published in the fall of 2002, by the Zenit news agency—a Vatican-based outlet associated with a militant Catholic right-wing group known as the Legion of Christ. So, which is the more striking: that the faithful should bravely confront the fact that one of their heroines all but lost her own faith, or that the Church should have gone on deploying, as an icon of favorable publicity, a confused old lady who it knew had for all practical purposes ceased to believe?

Crises of faith, or "dark nights of the soul" as they were termed by St. John of the Cross, are not a new idea to Roman Catholics. St. Therese of Lisieux, the 19th-century French Carmelite who was the namesake of Mother Teresa, seems to have died while enduring an experience of spiritual night that she likened to a dark tunnel. Making the best of it, many confessors and theologians have even argued that such tests are actually a kind of confirmation or vindication. The Rev. Joseph Neuner, one of those to whom Mother Teresa turned in her own agony, enjoined her to believe that her ordeal gave her a share in the Passion of Christ, and that His absence was in a way a "sure sign" of his "hidden presence" in her life. This slightly convenient diagnosis seems to have cheered her up, if only temporarily. (Here might be the place to declare my interest, and to state that at the invitation of the Vatican, I testified against the beatification and canonization of Mother Teresa, as well as to confess that I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.)

Moreover, this was no mere temporary visitation of doubt. Here are some of the things that she told her various advisers. "For me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,—Listen and do not hear—the tongue moves but does not speak." "Such deep longing for God—and … repulsed—empty—no faith—no love—no zeal.—[The saving of] Souls holds no attraction—Heaven means nothing." "What do I labor for? If there be no God—there can be no soul—if there is no Soul then Jesus—You also are not true." Like an old-fashioned Morse signal, the cryptic and dot-dash punctuation somehow serves to emphasize and amplify the distress.

It is no small thing for a Catholic to feel no "presence" whatever, "neither in her heart nor in the eucharist," as Father Kolodiejchuk has phrased it. The sacrament of the mass is not to be undergone in a wrong frame of mind, and there are hints here and there that Mother Teresa was afraid she was endangering her soul. She felt that she should not even be thinking such things: "So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them—because of the blasphemy—If there be God—please forgive me—When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven—there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul.—I am told God loves me—and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?" That last question in particular must have been an annihilating difficult one to face.

Now, it might seem glib of me to say that this is all rather unsurprising, and that it is the inevitable result of a dogma that asks people to believe impossible things and then makes them feel abject and guilty when their innate reason rebels. The case of Mother Teresa, who could not force herself into accepting the facile cure-all of "faith," is that of a fairly simple woman struggling to be honest with herself, while also—this is important—striving to be an example to others. And I believe I have a possible explanation for the crisis. It derives from something that Lord Macaulay said, when reviewing Leopold von Ranke's "History of the Popes." The Roman Catholic Church, he wrote, "thoroughly understands what no other Church has ever understood, how to deal with enthusiasts" [my italics]. Wise bishops have long known to beware of the fanatical and the overzealous. After being lectured on doctrinal matters by the ultraconservative convert Evelyn Waugh, the pope is said to have concluded the audience by murmuring, "Yes, Mr. Waugh. I am a Catholic, too." When Mother Teresa first rebelled against the quiet life of the Loreto Sisters in 1946, and sought permission from her superiors to start a new order—The Missionaries of Charity—she was at first turned down and told to stay in her allotted place of humility. The local archbishop, a man named Ferdinand Perier, then found he had a true believer on his hands: a woman hungry for humility and yet fantastically immodest. ("Come Be My Light," the slightly sickly subtitle of this book, is what Mother Teresa claims, not that she said to Jesus, but that He said to her.) Only after she had wearied the diocese with demands that her ambition be referred to the Vatican did she finally, after two years of pleading and cajoling, get her way. And then, two months after she started her own show in Calcutta in 1948, the demons checked in and, in effect, never quite checked out again. She got what she wanted, and found it a crushing disappointment.

It seems, therefore, that all the things that made Mother Teresa famous—the endless hard toil, the bitter austerity, the ostentatious religious orthodoxy—were only part of an effort to still the misery within. Again, the timeline would seem to support this interpretation. After 10 years of gnawing doubt, she reported a brief remission on the death of Pope Pius XII in the fall of 1958. Praying for him at a requiem mass, she found herself relieved of "the long darkness … that strange suffering." The respite only lasted for five weeks and then she was back "in the tunnel" once more. Soon after came the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which at a gathering of India's Catholics in Bombay she violently opposed, saying that what was wanted was not new thinking but more work and more faith. What could be a clearer indication of a deep need to suppress all doubt, both in herself and others?

Not many years later, she became a world-class celebrity with the film (and book) about her: "Something Beautiful for God," authored by the worldly English eccentric Malcolm Muggeridge. After that, her star power was so intense that the Church forgot Macaulay's wisdom and gave up any attempt to discipline her apparently enthusiastic fundamentalism. If Santayana was right to define fanaticism as "redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim," then Mother Teresa's international crusade against divorce, abortion and contraception was the tribute that doubt paid to certainty: a strenuous and almost hysterical effort to drown out the awful fear of "absence." One strongly suspects that, like not a few overpromoted figures, she suffered from more self-hatred the more she was overpraised. (After receiving one of many international prizes, she wrote: "This means nothing to me, because I don't have Him.")

Not perhaps to push my analysis too far, but it could also explain some of the things that alarmed even her defenders: the accepting of stolen money from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, for example, or the compromises she made with the tyrannical Indira Gandhi or the shady Charles Keating of savings-and-loan notoriety. Who cares about ignoble surrenders to the things of this impure world if they will fuel the endless drive to abolish misgiving through overwork? The same goes for the alarming doctrinal excesses. Every Catholic is supposed to regard abortion as an abomination (and, if it matters, I concur). But surely it takes someone both insecure and fanatical to exceed the official teaching and to tell the Nobel Prize audience, as she did, that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace?

Toward the end of her days, we have been informed by Archbishop D'Souza of Calcutta, her troubled and sleepless condition gave rise to such concern that she was subjected to an exorcism. According to this same clerical authority, the medieval banishment of the demons allowed her a good night's sleep before her death. One is glad to learn of it, and to know that she found a sort of peace. But since then, she has been posthumously exploited for having worked a medical "miracle" from beyond the grave: an episode which (to put it mildly) no respectable Bengali physician can confirm. I say it as calmly as I can—the Church should have had the elementary decency to let the earth lie lightly on this troubled and miserable lady, and not to invoke her long anguish to recruit the credulous to a blind faith in which she herself had long ceased to believe.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice." His most recent book is "God Is Not Great."

As usual, I'm not sure I agree with Hitchens, but he makes some good points.

For me, MT's crisis of faith actually makes me respect her a little more than I used to (which, admittedly, wasn't that much after reading Hitchens' earlier work on her). Even more so, it makes me have far more sympathy and pity for her than I used to.

I suppose my view is that the appropriate response to a "dark night of the soul" is to free oneself from the virus of faith. It's what I did at 16 and I felt immeasurably better for it. There is an incredible relief to realising that there is no need to square the circle, because the circle really is round. Of course, that raises the problem of man's innate need for meaning. But it also leads to the liberating (and terrifying) insight that it is not the universe that owes meaning to us, it is us who owe the creation of a meaning to ourselves. One of the great psychological attractions of religion, of course, is that it offers relief from the need to tailor our own meaning of life by providing one, pret-a-porter.

MT's tragedy, it seems, was that she had too much integrity to become, as many great priest have, a closet atheist - to mouth the words, cynically; while getting on with the good works, honestly. I suspect that Hitchens may be right that some of the nastier elements of her work (including the wacky fetishism of suffering) arose in part from this cognitive dissonance.

[Northcott]

One of the great psychological attractions of religion, of course, is that it offers relief from the need to tailor our own meaning of life by providing one, pret-a-porter.

Except, of course, for those that don't.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Except, of course, for those that don't.

All females bear children - except for seahorses.

All cars have four wheels - except for half-tracks and other crazy non-four-wheelers.

All generalisations have exceptions - except the really universal ones.

The validity of a generalisation is not determined by the presence of exceptions, but by the usefulness of the generalisation in the context in which it has been used. Finding exceptions for a generalisation, without showing how this undermines its usefulness in the relevant context, demonstrates nothing - except, perhaps, that the person who does it is a narrow-minded pedant desperate to change the topic.

EDIT: However, in this case, it's fair to say that if I'd realised my audience would include someone desperate to misconstrue every sentence I've ever typed, I'd have been slightly more pedantic and have written, "One of the great psychological attractions of [most] religion[s] [(and particularly most version of the Abrahamic faiths)] of course, is that [they] offer_ relief from the need to tailor our own meaning of life by providing one, pret-a-porter."

[Northcott]

Or -- as another possibility -- you're dead wrong. Again. And displaying both your ignorance of, and pathological need to proselytize, again. Perhaps you're only trying to "save" people from themselves with the most noble of intentions -- but so is the average Pentecostal preacher who tells folks that they're damned to Hellfire if they don't follow his way. Or speaking of them in disdainful terms if they don't buy into his ju-ju. In both cases it gets tiresome very quickly.

Ask a dozen Catholics what the meaning of life is, and chances are pretty good you'll get a dozen different answers. This holds true of many other faiths. If things were as cut and dried as you believe they are, this would not be the case. The validity of a generalization is determined by how applicable it is, and whether or not the user of said generalization is in realization of the limitations of its application. In both instances, you fail.

Many religions provide tools for dealing with life, a set of guidelines for how to behave if you will. There is great contradiction on any "meaning" to life, however.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Or -- as another possibility -- you're dead wrong. Again. And displaying both your ignorance of, and pathological need to proselytize, again. Perhaps you're only trying to "save" people from themselves with the most noble of intentions -- but so is the average Pentecostal preacher who tells folks that they're damned to Hellfire if they don't follow his way. Or speaking of them in disdainful terms if they don't buy into his ju-ju. In both cases it gets tiresome very quickly.

Ask a dozen Catholics what the meaning of life is, and chances are pretty good you'll get a dozen different answers. This holds true of many other faiths. If things were as cut and dried as you believe they are, this would not be the case. The validity of a generalization is determined by how applicable it is, and whether or not the user of said generalization is in realization of the limitations of its application. In both instances, you fail.

Many religions provide tools for dealing with life, a set of guidelines for how to behave if you will. There is great contradiction on any "meaning" to life, however.

You wrote *that* in a discussion of the beliefs of an senior and prominant officer of the *Catholic* church?!? The Catholic church of Veritatis Splendour and Papal Infallibility and excommunication of theologians who deviate from the centrally mandated doctrine?!? You're kidding, right? That was a piece of self parody, surely?

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Ask a dozen Catholics what the meaning of life is, and chances are pretty good you'll get a dozen different answers.

Actually, Ed, if they've been well-trained they'll probably respond verbatim with "To serve and worship God in this life and to be with Him in the next"*. And if they're really well-trained they'll follow that up with a wink (which is exactly what you meant, so never mind...)

*(from memory; I'm a right-footer and I might have got the exact wording wrong)

You wrote *that* in a discussion of the beliefs of an senior and prominant officer of the *Catholic* church?!? The Catholic church of Veritatis Splendour and Papal Infallibility and excommunication of theologians who deviate from the centrally mandated doctrine?!? You're kidding, right? That was a piece of self parody, surely?

A discussion about someone who (apparently) routinely violated one of her vows while pretending not to

While I agree with Northcott, I'd say that a religion also provides tools for making an individual a fitter member of society as well as tools to help an individual deal with life and the ethical and moral questions - and very useful tools they are too. For example: if I had to work out Just War Theory and it's application from first principles, I'd have spent months figuring out where I stood on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Instead, I just checked Rowan's working. Total time, thirty minutes

[Northcott]

You wrote *that* in a discussion of the beliefs of an senior and prominant officer of the *Catholic* church?!? The Catholic church of Veritatis Splendour and Papal Infallibility and excommunication of theologians who deviate from the centrally mandated doctrine?!? You're kidding, right? That was a piece of self parody, surely?

Nope. Dead serious. This is a far more complex issue than you seem willing to recognize. There is little, if anything, that holds as a statement of absolutes across all religions of the world. Even the notion of theism may not hold as a universal application. Moreover, within any living religion there is a process of growth and change, not to mention differences of regionality, and sometimes vast differences that evolve into entirely different sects.

This being the case, if somebody actually wants to be taken seriously by people who have studied and/or participated in various world religions, they should attempt some sort of accuracy in statement. If one wishes to communicate "totalitarian sects of Judeo-Christian thought" but perpetually uses the catch-all of "religion", they really shouldn't expect anything but miscommunication due to their utter lack of clarity. Not unless they really are attempting to lump all religions in together -- which doesn't really speak any higher of their intellect.

I suppose that one could be childishly disingenuous and extrapolate the above to mean that clarity of description must be repeated ad nauseum -- but it can be hoped for that the writer in question might know enough about basic communication skills -- or perhaps having seen a legal contract once or twice in their lives -- to know that initial clarification is all that is required to set the groundwork for brevity.

If you want to debate the evolution of Catholic theology and its course throughout historic and regional evolutions, have at it. It'll make for an interesting discussion. If you want to continue with the statements of generalization steeped in ignorance and proselytization rather than a desire to truly learn, then at least have the decency to dress in a white suit, drastically turn up the dramatics, and learn to speak with a Southern USA accent. Entertainment value cannot be overestimated.

[Northcott]

Actually, Ed, if they've been well-trained they'll probably respond verbatim with "To serve and worship God in this life and to be with Him in the next"*. And if they're really well-trained they'll follow that up with a wink (which is exactly what you meant, so never mind...)

*(from memory; I'm a right-footer and I might have got the exact wording wrong)

I've also heard it phrased as "To prepare ourselves for the next life..." etc. It shifts the focus, but the notion remains fixed upon "living right to be with Jesus".

Which is where we then tumble into old debates about Jesus' commands, how it is better to serve, love one another, etc, trip over the omnipresence of God, and end up on the hampster wheel of theology with the Meaning now pointing at how we treat each other, how we treat ourselves, how we deal with sin and redemption, etc. And at what point does the message become the meaning? Are they one and the same?

I think that rote helps set a groundwork for kids, but most people are too intellectually lazy to actually go wandering down the path that it's supposed to build for them.

Whereas Atticus believes that the hierarchical institutions of religion are all that's worth scrounging from the process, I think they should be the first to go. That's where politics reside, in hierarchies, and it's that very structure that has allowed all the great abuses done in the name of religion, throughout history, to be perpetrated. The central focus on any theology, if it wishes to discourage power games and the subsequent abuses that inevitably occur, must be to encourage individual thought, foster tolerance, and dismiss the notion of one person's power over another's spirituality or personal growth.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Actually, Ed, if they've been well-trained they'll probably respond verbatim with "To serve and worship God in this life and to be with Him in the next"*. And if they're really well-trained they'll follow that up with a wink (which is exactly what you meant, so never mind...)

*(from memory; I'm a right-footer and I might have got the exact wording wrong)



A discussion about someone who (apparently) routinely violated one of her vows while pretending not to

While I agree with Northcott, I'd say that a religion also provides tools for making an individual a fitter member of society as well as tools to help an individual deal with life and the ethical and moral questions - and very useful tools they are too. For example: if I had to work out Just War Theory and it's application from first principles, I'd have spent months figuring out where I stood on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Instead, I just checked Rowan's working. Total time, thirty minutes

But you don't need faith or any belief in the supernatural for just war theory. Which is why it's taught in every international law class in the world, stripped of most of the Christian superstructure.

There's no doubt that religion has been the incubator of much that is useful. But just as we don't speak of Christian physics (Newton was a Christian mystic) or Islamic algebra, we will come to cease speaking of Catholic just war theory or Buddhist meditation. Indeed, in international law classes, we already do with respect to just war theory.

As for tools for living, I agree wholeheartedly. As I've said again and again, I'd be a regular church-goer if Anglicanism would just drop the faith and the belief in the supernatural. Which reminds me, I have to work out how I'm going to get the vicar to let us sing Jerusalem at our wedding...

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But you don't need faith or any belief in the supernatural for just war theory.

No, but it helps - particularly if you have to put it into practice. Why do you think that USMC recruits have to memorize the citations of every single Marine who's been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor and be able to recite the details even when they're completely exhausted? Myth, Atticus, myth - it's what drives human beings when everything else is gone

[Atticus_of_Amber]

No, but it helps - particularly if you have to put it into practice. Why do you think that USMC recruits have to memorize the citations of every single Marine who's been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor and be able to recite the details even when they're completely exhausted? Myth, Atticus, myth - it's what drives human beings when everything else is gone

Fine - so long as you admit its myth.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Fine - so long as you admit its myth.

"Religious stories about the formation of the world and how things came to be"? Sure, the Bible contains myth

But it only works, properly, if you also believe it's true

[Atticus_of_Amber]

"Religious stories about the formation of the world and how things came to be"? Sure, the Bible contains myth

But it only works, properly, if you also believe it's true

Now, it works if you know its a myth - just not as well.

Hmm. Now we're at a real issue. Can I strongly recommend the latter chapters of the God Delusion where Dawkins talks about the virtues of the placebo effect? It's mostly a crib of what Dennett says in Breaking the Spell, but it's essentially a scientific examination of exactly what you just said.

That's the rub. Faith makes people irrational - but that can make them irrationally good as easily as it can make them irrationally evil. And faith can perform amazing feats of psychosomatic healing. As Dawkins says, homeopathy and faith healing probably does work - because its a very effective way of selling placebos.

One of the few disagreements between Dennett and Dawkins is over this. Dawkins, like the naive "But is it true!" child that he is (and that I am a bit, I'll admit) doesn't care what damage he does in his search for the truth. Dennett worries that "breaking the spell" may be a bad thing. Indeed, Dennett's discussion of human susceptibility to the placebo effect and the prevalence of shaman healers is a wonderful argument for the immensely positive survival value of human gullibility.

I'd really recommend you read both books. (However, be warned that, except on arguments for and against God's existence where he's very good; Dawkins' book is really just a John-and-Jill summary of Harris and Dennett.)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Now we're at a real issue. Can I strongly recommend the latter chapters of the God Delusion where Dawkins talks about the virtues of the placebo effect?

I've skimmed to around page 31 (where he defines the God Hypothesis), confirmed that he used a definition isn't used by all Moslems, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews and almost all Christians and then I put it back on the shelf (we've just had a thread on this - did you crib?). I understand that another large chunk is taken up with the various "proofs" of God's existence - if he'd actually talked to any theologians, he'd have been told a section of the first year of any theology degree is taken up with explaining why these "proofs" are so much dingo's kidneys (when unpacking after we moved recently, I found the essay I wrote taking apart Aquinis's Five Ways, but I'm tangenting). If you're suggesting that somewhere at the back of the book there's something worth reading, you're going to have to try harder to convince me

As Dawkins says, homeopathy and faith healing probably does work - because its a very effective way of selling placebos.

Yeah, I read a review of Dawkins program on homeopathy - it was either in New Scientist or the Grauniad. Very interesting assertion; if doctors took the time to actually talk, build trust and an actual relationship with their patients then conventional medicine would be even more effective - the placebo effect would be added to the real ("real"?) medicine

Indeed, Dennett's discussion of human susceptibility to the placebo effect and the prevalence of shaman healers is a wonderful argument for the immensely positive survival value of human gullibility.

Something I've kicking around for a while, it that we (as a species) are moving from a time of competing stories (modernism), into a time where we are/will be consciously manipulating our own stories and the stories of those around them (not "postmodernism" - that's just a phase like "deism" was a phase between pre-modernism and modernism; I don't think it has a name yet)

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Why don't people give a shit about her keeping poor people down? Hospice care is nice, but interfering in social justice is criminal.

Same reason nobody calls out the Democrats?

Color me unsurprised you think poorly of Mother Theresa. :rolleyes:

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I guess I do not understand why everyone seems so shocked about this "revelation". Who among us has not had doubts about their choices in life? Who has not had doubts about their chosen path ?
.

The people that are "shocked" here are the same ones that love to tear down anyone that does good works, since it makes them feel inferior when other people have the courage they lack. It's a sad pastime, but one that's all too common among the "caring elite."

[Kwalish Kid]

Yes, I am jealous that Mother Theresa had the courage to sell a concept of charity that minimally helped people while making herself very weathy and popular. I wish that I could dissemble enough that I could profit selling something that I didn't believe in.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Yes, I am jealous that Mother Theresa had the courage to sell a concept of charity that minimally helped people while making herself very weathy and popular. I wish that I could dissemble enough that I could profit selling something that I didn't believe in.

Making shit up is the hallmark of achievement for academics these days. Congratulations on your mastery of the art.

If you don't envy her, if she doesn't make you feel your own insignificance, why the vitriol and lies?

It's ok to cry, let it out baby, we won't judge you here...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I've skimmed to around page 31 (where he defines the God Hypothesis), confirmed that he used a definition isn't used by all Moslems, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews and almost all Christians and then I put it back on the shelf (we've just had a thread on this - did you crib?).

Hmmm. If you mean the Einsteinian god, then Dawkins explicitly says he has no problem with that. And I think Dawkins acknowledges that there are super-moderate theists who don't subscribe to the God Hypothesis and says he has no problems with them. But, I think you dramatically underestimate the number of people who DO adopt the God hypothesis.

EDIT: To put it in the terms of the "Courtier's Reply" I posted in the other thread. Dawkisn has no objection to people who say that the Emperor's clothes are imaginary, just to those who say they are certain that they are real but invisible.

I understand that another large chunk is taken up with the various "proofs" of God's existence - if he'd actually talked to any theologians, he'd have been told a section of the first year of any theology degree is taken up with explaining why these "proofs" are so much dingo's kidneys (when unpacking after we moved recently, I found the essay I wrote taking apart Aquinis's Five Ways, but I'm tangenting). If you're suggesting that somewhere at the back of the book there's something worth reading, you're going to have to try harder to convince me.

The fact that many theologians admit that teh "proofs" are crap didn't absolve Dawkins from having to deal with them in a book that argues that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

If you don't adopt the God Hypothesis - that i, if you don't think there actually is an intelligent thing that created the universe and occasionally intervenes in it, then there's not much point in you reading the GD, because you already agree with its central point.

Yes, there's some interesting stuff in the back, but it's all really a crib of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Yeah, I read a review of Dawkins program on homeopathy - it was either in New Scientist or the Grauniad. Very interesting assertion; if doctors took the time to actually talk, build trust and an actual relationship with their patients then conventional medicine would be even more effective - the placebo effect would be added to the real ("real"?) medicine

Yep. Dawkins goes so far as to play with the ideas that doctors should be allowed to lie to their patients and give them sugar pills buy tell them they are medicine.

There's a good Dennett-style argument that we should leave homoeopathy alone because it creates a useful division of labour: medicine for strictly scientific actual cures and treatments; homoeopathy of mumbo-jumbo to disguise effective placebos.

The problem with that is that some traditional healing techniques work beyond placebo. Herbal cures often contain active ingredients and rigorous examination of traditional "medicine" can often tip drug companies off to very useful future medicines. And there are some interesting studies done on acupuncture and meditation.

Something I've kicking around for a while, it that we (as a species) are moving from a time of competing stories (modernism), into a time where we are/will be consciously manipulating our own stories and the stories of those around them (not "postmodernism" - that's just a phase like "deism" was a phase between pre-modernism and modernism; I don't think it has a name yet)

Hmmm. I'm afraid I agree with Dawkins and Sokal, etc that post-modernism is a dangerous crock of shit. Indeed, I see the Bush administration's approach to reality as being a particularly dangerous example of post-modernism.

However, I suspect that what Dawkins calls "fraco-phonyism" is not what you were referring to when you used the word "post-modernism"...

[Kwalish Kid]

Making shit up is the hallmark of achievement for academics these days. Congratulations on your mastery of the art.

If you don't envy her, if she doesn't make you feel your own insignificance, why the vitriol and lies?

It's ok to cry, let it out baby, we won't judge you here...
What are you talking about? Do you know anything about this woman? Did you even read the first post of the thread?

[Northcott]

If you mean the Einsteinian god...

Rich, for a real mind-bender, look up Stephen Hawking's lecture that deals with Einstein's vision of God and how it relates to the study of quantum physics. Hawkings believes that they've got proof that God does, in fact, play dice with the universe. ;) Or at least that it reacts in ways that we can't possibly predict or get proper measure of due to fluctuations... oh fuck. Google it. Read it. It's a thought-provoker.

[Northcott]

Yes, I am jealous that Mother Theresa had the courage to sell a concept of charity that minimally helped people while making herself very weathy and popular. I wish that I could dissemble enough that I could profit selling something that I didn't believe in.

Popular? Yep. Though if she was suffering from some sort of clinical depression -- and who wouldn't be in that scenario -- popularity is generally a source of misery. I genuinely think she suffered a collapse a long time ago, and was never able to pull out of it.

The accusation of profit rings hollow, though. You are aware that the church's hierarchy meant that Mother Theresa didn't have absolute control of monies coming in, aren't you?

We're not talking about a Jimmy Swagart type here, who took the money and built great comfort out of it. She lived an ascetic life.

Is it horrible that so many were deprived of comfort that they might have otherwise had in their final days or formative years? Absolutely. It's a heart-breaking thought. But I think the issue of her motivation goes far beyond simple protestations of "she was a religious fanatic!" or "she was a schill who fleeced the public!".

I think the balance of guilt lays not with the easy figurehead of one woman who seemed to barely hold on for years at a time, but with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church who knew that she was in crisis, left her in a hellhole anyway, ensuring that the person in charge of their presence there was compliant (though in obvious distress and not making rational decisions), and continue to push through her status as a PR figurehead for the church even after her death. To blame Mother Theresa for what occurred lets the hierarchy of the church off the hook -- or at least gives them partial cover. In the end the final authority for finances in the church comes from on high, delegated down the chain of command. If she was allowed autonomy of any stripe, it was also because she was not removed from a position where she was very useful in providing a fine polish on the tarnished image of a religion blackened by the truth of history.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

If you don't adopt the God Hypothesis - that i, if you don't think there actually is an intelligent thing that created the universe and occasionally intervenes in it, then there's not much point in you reading the GD, because you already agree with its central point.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Atticus. If you, one more time, suggest that mainstream theists believe or, frankly, ever have believed that God is a being you can say hello to my ignore list. Possibly permanently. Maybe badly educated lay people wouldn't word it in Tillichian terms, but, if asked, they'd probably be able to articulate that God isn't a being in the same way that Barry Manilow is a being

This is the sort of thing I mean by you having difficulties in reading

Rich, for a real mind-bender, look up Stephen Hawking's lecture that deals with Einstein's vision of God and how it relates to the study of quantum physics. Hawkings believes that they've got proof that God does, in fact, play dice with the universe. ;) Or at least that it reacts in ways that we can't possibly predict or get proper measure of due to fluctuations... oh fuck. Google it. Read it. It's a thought-provoker.

This one? (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html) I read a version in "A Brief History...". I suspect that Steve would say that "God" in this lecture is a metaphor and, since he lost the bet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet), it's my understanding that the now believes the dice are eventually found

[Atticus_of_Amber]

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Atticus. If you, one more time, suggest that mainstream theists believe or, frankly, ever have believed that God is a being you can say hello to my ignore list. Possibly permanently. Maybe badly educated lay people wouldn't word it in Tillichian terms, but, if asked, they'd probably be able to articulate that God isn't a being in the same way that Barry Manilow is a being

This is the sort of thing I mean by you having difficulties in reading

Richard, I know you don't believe that, but I think you're just wrong to suggest that the majority of religious people don't believe it. Maybe in nice genteel circles of British Anglicanism, yes (indeed, that's what I love about nice genteel British Anglicanism). But I just don't see the evidence that that holds true for the numerical majority of Christians, let alone theists in general. For example, I'd be amazed at the suggestions that the average Muslim takes a Tillichian "imaginary clothes" view of Allah. (Again. check out The End of Faith and the PEW study discussed there.) And what of evangelical protestants? What of mainstream Catholic doctrine? What of Mormonism?

As I've said, if you believe in a Tillichian God, you pretty much agree with Richard Dawkins. If it's true that the majority of mainstream Christians believe that, then surely the appropriate response to Dawkins should be "Actually, professor, we agree with you entirely." But, as I keep saying, it would be nice if "mainstream religionists" were a little more clear that you don't think there is actually a God outside of the minds of the human being's who believe in Him. I have to say that I was a regular church goes for almost twenty years, was confirmed, and have been to church numerous times since and I didn't get that impression. Perhaps there needs to be an addendum to the Niscean Creed spoken each Sunday?

EDIT: Indeed. if you read the books that criticise The God Delusion, such as Alistair McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, they seem to me to argue that God DOES exist in precisely the sense that Dawkins attacks. And that's guy's an Anglican professor of theology at Oxford, for Christ's sake. Though, I must say, McGrath seemed to get incredibly slippery in refusing to answer direct questions on that issue when Dawkins interviewed him (full video available on googlevideo). That may have been that his posituon was subtler than I understand it to be, but if so the guy's a horrible communicator because Dawkins gave him ample opportunity to explain himself.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Richard, I know you don't believe that, but I think you're just wrong to suggest that the majority of religious people don't believe it.

What would convince you? I seem to remember that last time I linked to the motherfudging Catechism of the Catholic Church

As I've said, if you believe in a Tillichian God, you pretty much agree with Richard Dawkins. If it's true that the majority of mainstream Christians believe that, then surely the appropriate response to Dawkins should be "Actually, professor, we agree with you entirely." But, as I keep saying, it would be nice if "mainstream religionists" were a little more clear that you don't think there is actually a God outside of the minds of the human being's who believe in Him. I have to say that I was a regular church goes for almost twenty years, was confirmed, and have been to church numerous times since and I didn't get that impression. Perhaps there needs to be an addendum to the Niscean Creed spoken each Sunday?

That's not what I'm saying at all and that's not what Tillich was saying either

Not "a being", but "being" itself; "I am who I am"; Plato's uncaused cause and unmoved mover; "The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way"; "the ground of all being";

Is any of that triggering anything? Surely you've felt transcendence before - even Hitchens has felt transcendence

[Varaj]

I can answer for what Mormons believe. (I know Richard doesn't consider them Christian but his definition of Christian is pretty narrow)

Mormons believe God has a body and is very much like the big bearded guy in the sky.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

What would convince you? I seem to remember that last time I linked to the motherfudging Catechism of the Catholic Church



That's not what I'm saying at all and that's not what Tillich was saying either

Not "a being", but "being" itself; "I am who I am"; Plato's uncaused cause and unmoved mover; "The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way"; "the ground of all being";

Is any of that triggering anything? Surely you've felt transcendence before - even Hitchens has felt transcendence

Of course I've felt transcendence, but what has that to do with external reality? I've felt happy before, but that doesn't tell me anything about the external world any more than feeling sad or angry or high does.

Either you believe there is an intelligent being independent of human minds who created the universe, in which case you're adopting the god hypothesis and you need to meet Dawkins arguments; or God is a human concept (like justice and fairness and good and evil and blue and orange and beauty and ugliness), in which case you and Dawkins are in furious agreement.

The Einstinian God is a metaphor and thus falls into the second category. I must say that every time I read any Tillich, I come to a different view of what he's saying. He seems to be either deliberately dodging the question, or he's just confused.

Plato's uncaused cause and unmoved mover is a God hypothesis in Dawkins' sense.

Not "a being", but "being" itself doesn't actually say anything. What does that mean? Is it an idea that doesn't exist outside human minds? Or not? Is it intelligent? Or not? It's seems to me to be just a way of dodging the question.

"The ground of all being" - ditto. Unless you mean the its the ultimate nature of reality, in which case that's a question of physics.

"I am who I am" - a simple tautology that doesn't actually say anything more that it's first two words.

"The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way". Fine. I get that. But he way is a way of navigating the human experience. It wouldn't exist if humans ceased to exist. It's a concept and a method. Not a real existing thing that exists independent of the human mind.

EDIT: RF just to be clear, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here. Either I just don't get what you're saying - in which case it would be nice if you tried to be clearer; or you might just want to re-examine your own views to see if they really are coherent. Because, from where I sit, your position seems to keep shifting every time you're pressed from a different direction.

Let's try to clear this up with some simple questions: Do you believe that God exists outside human minds? That is, if every human ceased to exist, would there still be a God? Is god anything more than an idea?

[Northcott]

...

...Drop-kicking karate Jeebus from on high. I don't think I've ever seen quite as thorough a display of lack of reading comprehension or willful obfuscation in my life. And it seems sincere. :expressionless:

How many times has this been explained? In how many ways?

I'm on the verge of using my ignore list for the first time.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

What would convince you? I seem to remember that last time I linked to the motherfudging Catechism of the Catholic Church

Which, IIRC, didn't say what you said it said. Wanna repost so we can check, because I remember being singularity unimpressed last time. But maybe I'm misremembering. Have you got the reference so I can look it up?

I mean, come on, this was the church that until very recently believed in Limbo.

And those PEW poll figures were pretty convincing, btw. Something like 30% of Americans claimed to believe that Jesus would be physically returning to Earth in their lifetimes.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Atticus. If you, one more time, suggest that mainstream theists believe or, frankly, ever have believed that God is a being you can say hello to my ignore list. Possibly permanently. Maybe badly educated lay people wouldn't word it in Tillichian terms, but, if asked, they'd probably be able to articulate that God isn't a being in the same way that Barry Manilow is a bein

Hold on a sec! I didn't use the bad word "being". I said "thing", which was the term we agreed on the last time we had this discussion. Are you changing your position?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

double psot.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

(I know Richard doesn't consider them Christian but his definition of Christian is pretty narrow)

I believe that I said that at some point, but that was years ago. These days I wouldn't deny that anyone is a Christian if that's what they say there are. However, I will say that Mormons are outside of the mainstream of Christian thought.

Of course I've felt transcendence, but what has that to do with external reality?

I've felt happy before, but that doesn't tell me anything about the external world any more than feeling sad or angry or high does.That's interesting. Are you suggesting that emotions are something other than the outward expression of biochemical changes in the brain?

But have you thought that transcendence (given that it's something that is common to all cultures and all peoples) might just have some sort of function and religion is a exploration of a cultures shared experiences of transcendence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29)?

Either you believe there is an intelligent being independent of human minds who created the universe, in which case you're adopting the god hypothesis and you need to meet Dawkins arguments; or God is a human concept (like justice and fairness and good and evil and blue and orange and beauty and ugliness), in which case you and Dawkins are in furious agreement.

Logical fallacy: excluded middle. Also one of your premises is dodgy

I must say that every time I read any Tillich, I come to a different view of what he's saying. He seems to be either deliberately dodging the question, or he's just confused.

There's a third possibility - that he's trying to describe the indescribable. Which was (probably - haven't seen the interview), the same difficulty that Alistair McGrath had

Plato's uncaused cause and unmoved mover is a God hypothesis in Dawkins' sense.

Only if the the Mover is of the same order as the rest of reality - and given that this (Plato) the guy who invented the theory of forms I don't think this is what he meant

Not "a being", but "being" itself doesn't actually say anything. What does that mean? Is it an idea that doesn't exist outside human minds? Or not? Is it intelligent? Or not? It's seems to me to be just a way of dodging the question."No" to every single one of your questions. Whatever you say God is, He isn't

"The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way". Fine. I get that. But he way is a way of navigating the human experience. It wouldn't exist if humans ceased to exist. It's a concept and a method. Not a real existing thing that exists independent of the human mind.I think Lao Tzu would disagree with you. I'll rephrase that; given the rest of the stanza. I know that Lao Tzu would disagree with you

Let's try to clear this up with some simple questions: Do you believe that God exists outside human minds? That is, if every human ceased to exist, would there still be a God? Is god anything more than an idea?

In order: no, yes, yes

The concept of existence is not an attribute that can be applied to the concept of God in any meaningful use of their of those words

...Drop-kicking karate Jeebus from on high. I don't think I've ever seen quite as thorough a display of lack of reading comprehension or willful obfuscation in my life. And it seems sincere. :expressionless:

How many times has this been explained? In how many ways?

I'm on the verge of using my ignore list for the first time.

You and me both, mate

Which, IIRC, didn't say what you said it said. Wanna repost so we can check, because I remember being singularity unimpressed last time. But maybe I'm misremembering. Have you got the reference so I can look it up?

To be honest, I remember it being a pain in the butt to find and I don't think it would do any good

I mean, come on, this was the church that until very recently believed in Limbo.

AND AGAIN!

One more time, for the cheap seats, the Catholic church has never ever believed in Limbo. It was a folk belief and never part of official doctrine

And those PEW poll figures were pretty convincing, btw. Something like 30% of Americans claimed to believe that Jesus would be physically returning to Earth in their lifetimes.

Jesus was a physical being, Jesus is a physical being, Jesus will be physical being (though the definition of "is" in this sentence is a bit slippery)
Jesus was God, Jesus is God, Jesus will be God
This does not mean that God is a physical being because God is more than simply Jesus

Hold on a sec! I didn't use the bad word "being". I said "thing", which was the term we agreed on the last time we had this discussion. Are you changing your position?

Did we? Can you dig up my actual post? I'm fairly sure I hedged it with a number of caveats and I may have agreed to use it just to let the discussion proceed

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That's interesting. Are you suggesting that emotions are something other than the outward expression of biochemical changes in the brain?

No. At least, given the current evidence, I don't think so.

But have you thought that transcendence (given that it's something that is common to all cultures and all peoples) might just have some sort of function and religion is a exploration of a cultures shared experiences of transcendence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29)?

Depends on what you mean by transcendence. If you mean the feeling of transcendence, then I agree religion can be the exploration of a cultures shared experiences of transcendence - and so does Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and (I think) Richard Dawkins.

Logical fallacy: excluded middle. Also one of your premises is dodgy

Excluded middle is only a fallacy when the issue isn't genuinely binary. So, what's your supposed middle?

And which of my premises is "dodgy" and how?

There's a third possibility - that he's trying to describe the indescribable. Which was (probably - haven't seen the interview), the same difficulty that Alistair McGrath had

McGrath certainly seems to be arguing in favour of physical existence.

As for "describing the indescribable", that seems to me to be a dodge. If its indescribable, why try? But first, how do you know its indescribable? And if its indescribable, how do you know it's not just an inchoate idea in your own head?

Only if the the Mover is of the same order as the rest of reality - and given that this (Plato) the guy who invented the theory of forms I don't think this is what he meant

Not so sure about that. There's evidence that Plato actually thought the forms actually existed somewhere other than people's heads.

"No" to every single one of your questions. Whatever you say God is, He isn't

Doesn't one of those no's directly contradict an answer you give below?

I think Lao Tzu would disagree with you. I'll rephrase that; given the rest of the stanza. I know that Lao Tzu would disagree with you

Maybe. But if so, Lao Tzu was probably wrong.

In order: no, yes, yes

So:

(1) You believe that God does not exist outside human minds.

(2) But you also believe that if every human ceased to exist, would there still be a God.

(3) And you believe that god is something more than an idea?

How on earth do you reconcile (1) with (2) and (3)? Or have I misunderstood you.

The concept of existence is not an attribute that can be applied to the concept of God in any meaningful use of their of those words

Why? What's evidence or reasons do you have for believing that to be true?

One more time, for the cheap seats, the Catholic church has never ever believed in Limbo. It was a folk belief and never part of official doctrine

Didn't hear it the first time. I'm surprised to hear it. That certainly isn't what WikiPedia said the last time I looked Limbo up. Do you have a reference for the proposition that it was never part of official doctrine?

Jesus was a physical being, Jesus is a physical being, Jesus will be physical being (though the definition of "is" in this sentence is a bit slippery)
Jesus was God, Jesus is God, Jesus will be God
This does not mean that God is a physical being because God is more than simply Jesus

Do you believe that Jesus will physically return to Earth and judge the living and the dead and perform miracles?

And on a related point, do you believe that if we got in a time machine and went back to turn-of-the-millennium Palestine, we'd see Jesus actually raising people from the dead and actually turning water into wine, etc?

Did we? Can you dig up my actual post? I'm fairly sure I hedged it with a number of caveats and I may have agreed to use it just to let the discussion proceed

On the old boards - nothing land. In the "Do you believe in God and Why" thread I started.

You got pissy at me for using "being". I said, "Ok, didn't realise it was a technical term. Is "thing ok?" You said yes, we got on with the conversation.

Now I deliberately say "thing" in a conscious effort to not create the same misunderstanding twice and you explode at me. Very strange.

[Northcott]

Quick crib notes for those who are keeping watch, but may not wish lengthy explanations:

Excluded middle is only a fallacy when the issue isn't genuinely binary. So, what's your supposed middle?

1) Many sects of Judeo-Christian thought, as well as several other theologies, define the divine as "infinite". To say nothing of other cultures with various diestic perceptions, sometimes within pantheons. This makes placing a binary value on the concept of divinity a fallacy of the greatest kind.

2) Looking a bit further: if the divine is truly infinite, then it is not one or the other, but both. To say that something exists independent of human thought does not necessarily mean that it is apart from human thought.

So:

(1) You believe that God does not exist outside human minds.

(2) But you also believe that if every human ceased to exist, would there still be a God.

(3) And you believe that god is something more than an idea?

How on earth do you reconcile (1) with (2) and (3)? Or have I misunderstood you.

One take: Finite minds cannot grasp the full implications of the infinite. The infinite exists outside of our ability to perceive. "God" is a human, finite, fallible way of describing the infinite. Thus divinity does not exist outside the human mind, as the finite perception falls short of the greater truth: the truth, however, continues to exist without our consent.

[Northcott]

Didn't hear it the first time. I'm surprised to hear it. That certainly isn't what WikiPedia said the last time I looked Limbo up. Do you have a reference for the proposition that it was never part of official doctrine?

For Rich: To make your life simpler, man. :) Debate was had in the Catholic church for centuries about children in the afterlife. Limbo was put forward as a theory; a state of eternal bliss and happiness for children, given through the mercy of God, in recognition that these children had committed no true sins of their own, and refusing to damn them for "original sin". Hardcore psychos went with the "children go to Hell!" option, many claimed they went to Heaven, but the notion of Limbo spread and became a kind of folklore in the church. It was never canon, however.

In the Vatican Council of the 60's, the question was finally laid to rest. The most recent Catechism has, in an attempt to settle the issue, expressly tackled the subject and stated that Limbo is not a part of doctrine. The innocent are presumed to ascend to Heaven. There's certainly enough quotes from Jesus about the state of innocence of children.

This is, however, leading to a conflict in the doctrine of original sin, and opens the church up for a grand debate on whether or not people are born in a state of grace. I'm expecting that morons with a binary worldview will have trouble reconciling the notions.

And you probably know most of this shit, so I'm just rambling now. :D

[Varaj]

I believe that I said that at some point, but that was years ago. These days I wouldn't deny that anyone is a Christian if that's what they say there are. However, I will say that Mormons are outside of the mainstream of Christian thought.

Fair enough. Mormons are a large sect 12 million members are so but I would say that a lot of the beliefs are outside of mainstream for even Mormons. :)
But in all fairness I think that is truth with most heavily organized religions.

[Northcott]

Fair enough. Mormons are a large sect 12 million members are so but I would say that a lot of the beliefs are outside of mainstream for even Mormons. :)
But in all fairness I think that is truth with most heavily organized religions.

I'm just glad you were around to set me straight a few years back, before I knew the difference between the fundamentalist sect and mainstream Mormonism. The world's a little more pleasant knowing that difference.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Thanks Ed. Atticus, I believe you have Ed on ignore. I suggest that you take him off ignore, at least for this thread. He's already responded to most of your questions

McGrath certainly seems to be arguing in favour of physical existence.I haven't


As for "describing the indescribable", that seems to me to be a dodge. If its indescribable, why try? But first, how do you know its indescribable?

Because that's my experience of transcendence. It's also the experience of just about every single serious religious thinker from every culture, ever. I'm having to think hard to come up with one that didn't (Joseph Smith - there you go)

I can't believe I actually need to argue that a transcendent experience is an experience of transcendence

And if its indescribable, how do you know it's not just an inchoate idea in your own head?

I don't

Doesn't one of those no's directly contradict an answer you give below?No

How on earth do you reconcile (1) with (2) and (3)? Or have I misunderstood you.

Yes. Existence is not an attribute that can be applied to God

Why? What's evidence or reasons do you have for believing that to be true?

It's my experience of Him and just how about every religious thinker has experienced God or Brahman or Allah or Waheguru or Śūnyatā (back in your box Maddman, I know I'm mangling what the Buddha said, it's just I experience it differently. My emptiness has a face ;) )

Didn't hear it the first time. I'm surprised to hear it.Really? I could have sworn we had a discussion about it a few years back. I'm sure there was a thread on one incarnation of the boards when they finally announced it

Do you have a reference for the proposition that it was never part of official doctrine?


Second paragraph: "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium"

Do you believe that Jesus will physically return to Earth and judge the living and the dead and perform miracles?

What I believe about the End Times is a whole separate ball of wax that I don't have time to go into at this point. Start another thread in a month or so

And on a related point, do you believe that if we got in a time machine and went back to turn-of-the-millennium Palestine, we'd see Jesus actually raising people from the dead and actually turning water into wine, etc?

Yes

Now I deliberately say "thing" in a conscious effort to not create the same misunderstanding twice and you explode at me. Very strange.

I believe that this is about the third time we've had a discussion about the nature of God - possibly the fourth. Last time, I must have tried a different approach. Obviously, it was a mistake

Varaj: 12 million? The Holy Roman Catholic Church has over a billion. Now that's mainstream

[Varaj]

Varaj: 12 million? The Holy Roman Catholic Church has over a billion. Now that's mainstream

I agree they aren't mainstream, but they are a large sect.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I agree they aren't mainstream, but they are a large sect.

Sorry, there should have been a smilie at the end of that

Here you go :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Thanks Ed. Atticus, I believe you have Ed on ignore. I suggest that you take him off ignore, at least for this thread. He's already responded to most of your questions

I'm afraid I can't do that. Happy to respond to you if you want to quote and adopt what another poster has said, though.

Because that's my experience of transcendence. It's also the experience of just about every single serious religious thinker from every culture, ever. I'm having to think hard to come up with one that didn't (Joseph Smith - there you go)

I can't believe I actually need to argue that a transcendent experience is an experience of transcendence

I think you've missed my point. How do you know the experience of transcendence is anything more than just an experience? If I sit on my hand, I can feel pins pricking it, but that doesn't mean there actually are pins pricking it.

I don't [know it's not just an inchoate idea in your own head]

Fair enough. But it would be nice if you made that clear. And the question whether it is more than an "inchoate idea in your own head' is a scientific question that can in principle be answered by reason and observation. Why not get interested in teh answer?

Yes. Existence is not an attribute that can be applied to God.

But why? How do you know this? Where does this proposition come from? Why should it be believed? What is the evidence for it?

It's my experience of Him and just how about every religious thinker has experienced God or Brahman or Allah or Waheguru or Śūnyatā (back in your box Maddman, I know I'm mangling what the Buddha said, it's just I experience it differently. My emptiness has a face ;) )

But again, how do you know that this experience is pointing to anything that exists outside your head? How do you know this is not just an idea that you are making up to make sense of an experience?

Yes [In answer to the question, "do you believe that if we got in a time machine and went back to turn-of-the-millennium Palestine, we'd see Jesus actually raising people from the dead and actually turning water into wine, etc?"]

Ok. Here I think you've finally managed to pin yourself down. Whatever God is, it has enough effect on the world to cause its "son" (whatever that means, perhaps a physical manifestation of God itself) to have the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, and to raise said son from the dead. If we went back there, we'd see it happen, you say.

Aren't THOSE scientific propositions that are, in principle, testable? Surely that necessarily buys into Dawkins' God hypothesis?

Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought, in which case you're buying into the God hypothesis and have to address Dawkins' arguments. Or you don't, in which case you're in furious agreement with the good professor.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm afraid I can't do that.

Yes you can. What you're saying is that you won't

But again, how do you know that this experience is pointing to anything that exists outside your head? How do you know this is not just an idea that you are making up to make sense of an experience?

Isn't that a modern definition of consciousness?


Aren't THOSE scientific propositions that are, in principle, testable? Surely that necessarily buys into Dawkins' God hypothesis?

No. Because even if you could do that, it wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of a theistic God, not just because (once again) existence is not an attribute of theistic concept of deity, but because all that it would show is the existence or otherwise of a being that can heal the sick and raise the dead. Could just be a space alien.

Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought, in which case you're buying into the God hypothesis and have to address Dawkins' arguments. Or you don't, in which case you're in furious agreement with the good professor.

Local fallacy, excluded middle. Again

[there_is_no_bob]

Local fallacy, excluded middle. Again
Could you expand on that for those of us in the cheap seats?

Oh, and did you ever find anything out about that martial artist you had some doubts about? I can't even remember who it was, or why he was going to be doing something (giving a talk, maybe?), but it pokes at me everytime I see you post.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought, in which case you're buying into the God hypothesis and have to address Dawkins' arguments. Or you don't, in which case you're in furious agreement with the good professor.
Local fallacy, excluded middle. Again
Could you expand on that for those of us in the cheap seats?

That's the question I keep asking, and I'm yet to get a reply.

As I've said at least once before, "excluded middle"* is only a fallacy when there really is a middle. So, what's the middle?

Like you Non-Bob, I'd really like to know; because at present, I have absolutely no idea what he's referring to.

Have to work today. Will post more later tonight. (It's 9am my time now.)

*The excluded middle: The excluded middle is a fallacy where by an argument proceeds on the assumption that all entities are either A or non-A and ignores the possibility that there may exist an intermediate state between A and non-A. A good example might be George Bush's infamous "you're either with us or your with the terrorist" remark from his post 9/11 address to Congress. But for it to be shown that an argument has fallen into the excluded middle fallacy, it first has to be show that there really is a middle. Just crying "excluded middle!" like a mantra without establishing the existence of the middle has a tendency to look like trying to throw sand in the bull's eyes.**

**Throw sand in the bull's eyes/Sing the bull to sleep: From "dilemma" meaning horns of the bull. If you're presented with a dilemma, in logic you can choose to address (and risk being gored by) the left horn, or the right horn, or you can try to strike between the horns (prove there is an excluded middle). However, in rhetoric you also have a couple of other choices. You can throw sand in the bulls eyes by trying to confuse it with fancy words ("Excluded middle"!). Or you can try to sing the bull to sleep with soothing high-minded words (what Rowan Williams' piece appears to me, at least before I give it a second reading, to have done so expertly).

[Northcott]

Could you expand on that for those of us in the cheap seats?

Oh, and did you ever find anything out about that martial artist you had some doubts about? I can't even remember who it was, or why he was going to be doing something (giving a talk, maybe?), but it pokes at me everytime I see you post.


Dammit, Bob. Read the thread. ;) This was answered in post 55 -- which would be why Atticus hasn't seen it.

Mind you, it's been explained to him repeatedly, and he still doesn't see it, so the 'ignore' function really can't be blamed here.

[there_is_no_bob]

Dammit, Bob. Read the thread. ;) This was answered in post 55 -- which would be why Atticus hasn't seen it.
Read it. Wasn't answered, far as I can tell.

There is the set of <things that affect the world apart from human conciousness>, and there is the set of <things that are not in the set of things that affect the world apart from human conciousness>. I don't see how something can be in both, on account of how it can't by the definition of the sets; being infinite does not mean it can't be put in a set.

Have to leave now. Shit. gonna be late.

[Northcott]

Read it. Wasn't answered, far as I can tell.

So you missed this?

One take: Finite minds cannot grasp the full implications of the infinite. The infinite exists outside of our ability to perceive. "God" is a human, finite, fallible way of describing the infinite. Thus divinity does not exist outside the human mind, as the finite perception falls short of the greater truth: the truth, however, continues to exist without our consent.

I don't see how something can be in both, on account of how it can't by the definition of the sets; being infinite does not mean it can't be put in a set.

If something is within the limits of your ability to perceive, then that thing is not truly infinite. Limitations of definition imply finite ends. Not really the chief point here -- the paragraph above is -- but it makes for some interesting thinking.

Anyway, that's just an aside. The question that prompted the cascade of talk was whether or not Rich believed in the existence of God as an entity outside the human experience, or whether God is a construct of the human mind. The answer is "both", and the above illustrates why. It also explains why Atticus' statement of a binary necessity is a logical fallacy presenting a false dichotomy: it depends on the situation being one or the other, rather than both -- which is what Rich (and many other theologians) believe.

For clarity, this was Atticus' statement:
Either you believe there is an intelligent being independent of human minds who created the universe, in which case you're adopting the god hypothesis and you need to meet Dawkins arguments; or God is a human concept (like justice and fairness and good and evil and blue and orange and beauty and ugliness), in which case you and Dawkins are in furious agreement.


If this still isn't making sense, let me try and illustrate the point. You're on a ship at sea, brought on board without awareness, and waking up face down on the floor, bound so you can't move. The only thing you can see and feel is the surface you're lying on -- which is a series of wooden planks that creak and groan when the ship rolls in the waves.

So when somebody asks you: what is the ship made of? Your logical response is based upon your perception: wood. However, it's also possible that you're on a big honkin' metal ship, but simply laying on a wooden interior floor (Let's hope it's not the Titanic!). This does not invalidate your perception, but rather highlights the limitations of it. Your definition is valid given your information; is partially correct at the very least; and insofar as perception informs experience, it is a wooden ship to you for all intents and purposes (human concept of God). The truth, however, is beyond your ability to perceive, existing outside your limitations (the infinite).

God remains a human concept, insofar as humanity is limited in perception. This does not invalidate the notion of the possible existence of a divine principle which is, in effect, the ship we sail blindly upon. One is an attempt to understand the other, not a declaration of it's absolute truth.

[there_is_no_bob]

If something is within the limits of your ability to perceive, then that thing is not truly infinite. Limitations of definition imply finite ends. Not really the chief point here -- the paragraph above is -- but it makes for some interesting thinking.That still doesn't mean I can't put it in a set. I can't conceive of the set of real numbers. It's just too damned big. I can't even count the thing. I can still say there is a set consisting of two elements, the set of real numbers and a bunny. One of those things I can't fully percieve (well, both of them, really, on account of the atomic and sub-atomic stuff that's going on in the bunny), but I can still put 'em in the set.

Try this: everything blongs to either the set 'God' or the set 'Not part of the set of things that are God'. I don't have to know what is in each set to define the sets.

If you say "logical fallacy, excluded middle" when I tell you God is the first set, I'm going to look at you funny, because I defined him to be there. We can have all sorts of discussions and arguments about what belongs in the second set (maybe nothing, maybe everything except the chair I'm sitting on), but as soon as you tell me God is in the second set you've left behind what I know about logic.

If you're wanting to say "You can't define God to be in any set" then please do, but that's a premise that hasn't been defined in this discussion.


Anyway, that's just an aside. The question that prompted the cascade of talk was whether or not Rich believed in the existence of God as an entity outside the human experience, or whether God is a construct of the human mind. The answer is "both", and the above illustrates why. It also explains why Atticus' statement of a binary necessity is a logical fallacy presenting a false dichotomy: it depends on the situation being one or the other, rather than both -- which is what Rich (and many other theologians) believe.

For clarity, this was Atticus' statement:Stop right there.

I'm not replying to that, I'm talking about the thing Rich was talking about when I quoted him. The first one, yeah, I can see how that could be worked out - There exists God, independent of human thought, and there exists God*, creation of human thought, the two are linked but separate. Great, fine, not two sets of things that are defined to be mutually exclusive.

The one I'm talking about is Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought, in which case you're buying into the God hypothesis and have to address Dawkins' arguments. Or you don't, in which case you're in furious agreement with the good professor.
These are two sets where you can't be in both. If you're wanting to say that "There is God, who has had an effect on the world outside of human thought and communication, and there is God*, who has only had an effect on the world through human thought and communication" then that would be the explanation I was looking for.

Also, all further discussion on the topic would kind of require that the two be identified properly, so as to cut don on wordy shit like this. Fuck, I'm supposed to be a goddamned lurker for the most part, and look at what you've made me do!:mad:

If that's the case, I imagine AA has been trying to talk about God, while Rich may have been talking about God or God*. But I don't know, so I asked.


If this still isn't making sense, let me try and illustrate the point. You're on a ship at sea, brought on board without awareness, and waking up face down on the floor, bound so you can't move. The only thing you can see and feel is the surface you're lying on -- which is a series of wooden planks that creak and groan when the ship rolls in the waves.

So when somebody asks you: what is the ship made of? Your logical response is based upon your perception: wood.
Nu-uh. Your 'reasonable'(1) response would be "Wood". Your logical response would be "How the fuck should I know, asshole!? I'm groggy, bound and only able to see a tiny part of the fucking floor! Now untie me, or Captain Canuck is going to beat the shit out of you!".

...Or something like that.:D


(1)definitions of 'reasonable' may vary. Offer not valid in places where wood doesn't exist. No refunds!

[Northcott]

That still doesn't mean I can't put it in a set.

The problem with that is the concept of trying to limit the unlimited for easier definition. Which brings us to...

If you're wanting to say "You can't define God to be in any set" then please do, but that's a premise that hasn't been defined in this discussion.

I thought it would be understood that Rich's repeated message of trying to define God (and thus the whole kerfuffle over the word 'being') as being a quite explicit statement on that.


Stop right there.

I'm not replying to that...

My bad! I was confused. I was looking at the original logical fallacy, not the second one.

There exists God, independent of human thought, and there exists God*, creation of human thought, the two are linked but separate. Great, fine, not two sets of things that are defined to be mutually exclusive.

Here's the mind-bender. If God (the divine principle) is a part of all things and apart from nothing, then it is also not seperate from the human philosophical concept of God, and may act through that as well. This ties into the Buddhist notion that perception of the world is illusion and enlightenment comes from 'being'. Circle back to the notion of God not as a being, but as being.

To understand where Rich is coming from on this, or most theologians of that stripe, one needs to deliniate between perceptions of dichotomy, and how those perceptions will affect their stance in the examination of the notion at hand.

The one I'm talking about is
These are two sets where you can't be in both. If you're wanting to say that "There is God, who has had an effect on the world outside of human thought and communication, and there is God*, who has only had an effect on the world through human thought and communication" then that would be the explanation I was looking for.

The answer to both sets is "yes". Really, man, if your parameter for defining the first set is "that is infinite", then it cannot be held entirely seperate from the second set. And that's where this discussion is likely to break down, because perception without seperation is mind-fucking business. We're hard-wired to seperate things into easier perceptions, after all (or so I believe, at any rate).

Fuck, I'm supposed to be a goddamned lurker for the most part, and look at what you've made me do!:mad:

:D

If that's the case, I imagine AA has been trying to talk about God, while Rich may have been talking about God or God*. But I don't know, so I asked.

Rich has been talking about both. AA has been exclusively discussing the latter, while periodically paying lip service to the former... then missing the point and seeking convenient reductions of the concept into self-defeating definitions. For example (not that these were Atticus' points): somebody trying to claim that a being of infinite power couldn't create the universe as it was a) brought into being at that time and could not pre-date its own existence, b) is a concept of man that may exist independently but thus cannot predate man, etc. Well, if we're talking about a being of truly infinite power, time may not mean the same thing to it, if time even has bearing on such a concept.


Nu-uh. Your 'reasonable'(1) response would be "Wood". Your logical response would be "How the fuck should I know, asshole!? I'm groggy, bound and only able to see a tiny part of the fucking floor! Now untie me, or Captain Canuck is going to beat the shit out of you!".

This is why I'd make a rotten Captain Canuck; I swear too much.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That still doesn't mean I can't put it in a set. I can't conceive of the set of real numbers. It's just too damned big. I can't even count the thing. I can still say there is a set consisting of two elements, the set of real numbers and a bunny. One of those things I can't fully percieve (well, both of them, really, on account of the atomic and sub-atomic stuff that's going on in the bunny), but I can still put 'em in the set.

Precisely right. "Infinity" seems to me to be a complete red herring here.

Try this: everything belongs to either the set 'God' or the set 'Not part of the set of things that are God'. I don't have to know what is in each set to define the sets.

If you say "logical fallacy, excluded middle" when I tell you God is the first set, I'm going to look at you funny, because I defined him to be there. We can have all sorts of discussions and arguments about what belongs in the second set (maybe nothing, maybe everything except the chair I'm sitting on), but as soon as you tell me God is in the second set you've left behind what I know about logic.

If you're wanting to say "You can't define God to be in any set" then please do, but that's a premise that hasn't been defined in this discussion.

Again, I agree.

Stop right there.

I'm not replying to that, I'm talking about the thing Rich was talking about when I quoted him. The first one, yeah, I can see how that could be worked out - There exists God, independent of human thought, and there exists God*, creation of human thought, the two are linked but separate. Great, fine, not two sets of things that are defined to be mutually exclusive.

The one I'm talking about is

I meant the same thing in both statements. However, the first one was a little loosely worded and thus apt to be misinterpreted by those inclidned to do so.

Of course an object can be both real* [set A] and imaginary [set B] in the sense that I can imagine the tennis ball that is also really sitting in front of me right now. The sets intersect.

(1) There are imaginary things that are not real (unicorns, probably; god, probably) [that part of B not intersecting with A].

(2) There are real things that are not imagined (things that exist out there that we've never even thought of yet) [that part of A not intersecting with B].

(3) There are things that are both imaginary and real (the tennis ball in front of me) [the intersection of A and B].

(4) And there are things that are neither imaginary nor real (ideas that have not been thought up yet that do not correspond to real things) [the complement of the union of sets A and B].

My question was whether God was imaginary but not real (option 1) or both imaginary and real (option 2). (options 3 and 4 seem to be excluded by the fact that God has been imagined). I wanted to get clarification on what Hastur meant by "God" because his statements seemed to me to vacillate between the two options.

*By "real" I mean capable of affecting the world directly apart from human minds and communication. For example, capable or creating the universe, raising the dead, making the shape of the Virgin Mary appear in a cut tomato, etc.

These are two sets where you can't be in both. If you're wanting to say that "There is God, who has had an effect on the world outside of human thought and communication, and there is God*, who has only had an effect on the world through human thought and communication" then that would be the explanation I was looking for.

Also, all further discussion on the topic would kind of require that the two be identified properly, so as to cut don on wordy shit like this. Fuck, I'm supposed to be a goddamned lurker for the most part, and look at what you've made me do!:mad:

Exactly. And better said that I did.

If that's the case, I imagine AA has been trying to talk about God, while Rich may have been talking about God or God*. But I don't know, so I asked.

THAT is my question. Is Hastur talking about just the imaginary God, or is he also talking about a real one as well? Some of his answers suggest the former (in which case he has no beef with Professor Dawkins); some suggest the latter (in which case he has to address Dawkins' arguments). All I wanted to know is which it is.

As you and I have both said now, if there is an "excluded middle" it needs to be identified. So far, I haven't seen one. If you can, given that you and I seem to speak the same language, could you please explain it to me, because trying to understand Hastur so far has made my head hurt.

Nu-uh. Your 'reasonable'(1) response would be "Wood". Your logical response would be "How the fuck should I know, asshole!? I'm groggy, bound and only able to see a tiny part of the fucking floor! Now untie me, or Captain Canuck is going to beat the shit out of you!".

...Or something like that.:D


(1)definitions of 'reasonable' may vary. Offer not valid in places where wood doesn't exist. No refunds!

I agree, again. I'll think you'll find that particular the poster has a rather odd, science-fiction-Spock-parody view of what logic and rationality actually is.

In that situation, the best you can say is that the very limited evidence (the composition of the floor) is not enough to reach a conclusion but that, if the whole ship is made from the same substance as the floor, the ship is wood. Of course, if you could hear the ship shifting and had some experience of ships and boats, you might be able to tell the difference between the distinctive "woody" creak, or fibreglass echoes or metal "gong" that ships of different makes make when then shift. And that might be enough to make a probabilistic assessment.

Anyway, thanks for your intervention. It's reassured me that I wasn't actually going insane. If you can see what the "excluded middle" is here, please feel free to explain it. Because I'd genuinely like to know.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

If you can, given that you and I seem to speak the same language, could you please explain it to me, because trying to understand Hastur so far has made my head hurt.

Good, because then I'm going it right

As Lao Tzu should have put it: "The Way that doesn't make your head hurt is not the true Way."

[Hastur T. Fannon]

PS: Attention Atticus of Amber (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Good, because then I'm going it right

As Lao Tzu should have put it: "The Way that doesn't make your head hurt is not the true Way."

Cute song, but this bull can't be sung to sleep - and throwing sand in its eyes just makes it more determined.

You still haven't answered Bob's question of exactly what this "excluded middle" of yours is. So, for perhaps the tenth time, what excluded middle?

Because, as I (and to some extent, now Bob) have said very clearly, if you want to be logically coherent and if you can't identify the middle, then you need to either address Dawkins' arguments, or agree with him.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

PS: Attention Atticus of Amber (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=622)

Relevant material from this thread copied to the more appropriate venue of the Reason and Religion thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=16000#post16000).

(Wrong link in your html there, btw Hastur.)

[there_is_no_bob]

What I've gotten out of this thread: a fundamental premise of discussion for Northy (who still hasn't flattened Harper while wearing a Captain Canuck suit :mad: (:neenerneener:)) is that God(1) cannot be defined to not be part of a set.


At which point there doesn't really seem to be an excluded middle.

I'd reply to stuff with quotes and all, but I just got back from vacation and I can't even remember which goddamned (Hah! I'm hilarious!) set is which.


(1)Using God to denote the idea pointed to by God*, the thing/concept worshipped/percieved by humans when having revelatory experiences.

[Xavier Lang]

Try this: everything blongs to either the set 'God' or the set 'Not part of the set of things that are God'. I don't have to know what is in each set to define the sets.


I think part of the problem you may be having Bob is that the set of things 'Not part of the set of things that are God' excludes everything that humanity can/has/will be able to detect and get information about. If god is everywhere, everywhen, etc... then the set of not god isn't a set we know much about it and can't really know about. So while you can have the set of God and not God, the set of not God doesn't have anything in it from some humans perspective. ::shrug::

[Northcott]

I think part of the problem you may be having Bob is that the set of things 'Not part of the set of things that are God' excludes everything that humanity can/has/will be able to detect and get information about. If god is everywhere, everywhen, etc... then the set of not god isn't a set we know much about it and can't really know about. So while you can have the set of God and not God, the set of not God doesn't have anything in it from some humans perspective. ::shrug::

Bullseye! And when Rich is asked "Do you believe in A or B", and his response is "both", we have an excluded middle: C/both.

It doesn't require buying into the theology to see the point.

[there_is_no_bob]

Bullseye! And when Rich is asked "Do you believe in A or B", and his response is "both", we have an excluded middle: C/both.

It doesn't require buying into the theology to see the point.
But "Both" is just the first one.

Here's the categories, as I read them:
God acts solely outside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God.
God acts solely through human thought/communication. This is set 2 -There exists only God*.
God acts through human thought/communication and outside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God (and God*).

Oh, also: God/God* does not act. This set has not been accounted for, and could be the position Hastur is taking, but since it can be struck down by "People go to church to worship God*(and possibly God)" it really isn't worth discussing (in this context). I'll call this set :what:

Please add the excluded options I've missed so I can see the point more clearly. 'Cause I'm really not seeing it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

But "Both" is just the first one.

Here's the categories, as I read them:
God acts solely outside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God.
God acts solely through human thought/communication. This is set 2 -There exists only God*.
God acts through human thought/communication and outside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God (and God*).

Oh, also: God does not act. This set has not been accounted for, and could be the position Hastur is taking, but since it can be struck down by "People go to church to worship God" it really isn't worth discussing (in this context). I'll call this set :what:

Please add the excluded options I've missed so I can see the point more clearly. 'Cause I'm really not seeing it.

Bingo - again. That's pretty much what I still don't get.

Though I used slightly different terminology when I defined my sets in an earlier post, which I think comes to the same thing (with a horrible error from the last time I set this out corrected in bold underlined text):

Of course an object can be both real* [set A] and imaginary [set B] in the sense that I can imagine the tennis ball that is also really sitting in front of me right now. The sets intersect.

(1) There are imaginary things that are not real (unicorns, probably; god, probably (in my view)) [that part of B not intersecting with A].

(2) There are real things that are not imagined (things that exist out there that we've never even thought of yet) [that part of A not intersecting with B].

(3) There are things that are both imaginary and real (the tennis ball in front of me) [the intersection of A and B].

(4) And there are things that are neither imaginary nor real (ideas that have not been thought up yet that do not correspond to real things) [the complement of the union of sets A and B].

My question was whether God was imaginary but not real (option 1) or both imaginary and real (option 3). (options 2 and 4 seem to be excluded by the fact that God has been imagined). I wanted to get clarification on what Hastur meant by "God" because his statements seemed to me to vacillate between the two options.

*By "real" I mean capable of affecting the world directly apart from human minds and communication. For example, capable or creating the universe, raising the dead, making the shape of the Virgin Mary appear in a cut tomato, etc.

I wish I knew how to draw a Venn Diagram on the computer and post it here. It might make things clearer.

EDIT: Ah, here we go - see the attachment. A is the whole of the top circle. B is the whole of the bottom circle. (1) is that part of B that doesn't overlap with A. (2) is that part of A that doesn't overlap with B. (3) is the bit where A overlaps with B. And (4) is everything that isn't in A or B. The question is whether God is anywhere in A (including both (2) and (3)), or not.


BTW, Hastor - I've tried to move this discussion out of this Mother Theresa thread and into the Religion vs Reason thread (and I acknowledge that the reason it is here in the first place was my carelessness), but it seems this is the forum that Bob and Northcott are using to continue the discussion so I think I have to bow to the inevitable consequences of my own mistake. :(

[Northcott]

But "Both" is just the first one.

No, it's not. The language you use prevents that.

God acts solely outside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God.
God acts solely through human thought/communication. This is set 2 -There exists only God*.

Get it yet? You're using exclusionary language to try and seperate something that is, by definition, all. You're seeking a binary solution where one does not exist.

God acts through human thought/communication andoutside of human thought/communication. This is set 1 -There exists God (and God*).

That is option C. It is not necessarily set 1.

Here was the original statement from Atticus that you're defending: "Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought... Or you don't..." (snipped for brevity)

This excludes the middle: God has an effect on the world. Period. Making the notion of human communication and thought, and the exclusion or inclusion of, irrelevant. A holistic view that does not require concrete adherence to either, but walks a middle path of direct action. Think of something closer to the eastern concept of "empty mind".

Another middle: We are the manifestation of God's will in the world. Thus he has an effect on the world, but it is not necessarily apart from human communication and thought.

Oh, also: God does not act. This set has not been accounted for, and could be the position Hastur is taking, but since it can be struck down by "People go to church to worship God" it really isn't worth discussing (in this context). I'll call this set :what:

Whoops. Expand on this a little. If God is all, then God does not act... but does in that the Universe is in constant motion. It's a tripping point, and the root of the "mysterious ways" shtick. If God is all, everywhere and everywhen, then are we not God? Are we not acting? Are not our actions, our will, the will of God? Is God our collective thought? Are we its puppets? Is it both or perhaps neither?

This is why I said that in the face of such a variety of perceptions of divinity, so many theological sources and explorations, that a binary reduction of the question of divinity is a false one. Like Buddhist questions on enlightenment, it goes on and on without concrete answer or direct flow.

Even in Rich's specific case you're unlikely to get a Set 1/2 answer out of him on this, because some of these are notions he himself ponders and the notions themselves lead to fluidity of thought. They are not neatly categorized, as frustrating as that may seem.

Edit: You know, I was going to add a few more showing how the binary gets tweaky when viewed through different lenses of thought, but it's waaaaay too late, and I'm fading fast. This post may not even be coherent. If not? Sorry!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

No, it's not. The language you use prevents that.



Get it yet? You're using exclusionary language to try and seperate something that is, by definition, all. You're seeking a binary solution where one does not exist.



That is option C. It is not necessarily set 1.

Here was the original statement from Atticus that you're defending: "Either you think God has an effect on the world apart from human communication and thought... Or you don't..." (snipped for brevity)

This excludes the middle: God has an effect on the world. Period. Making the notion of human communication and thought, and the exclusion or inclusion of, irrelevant. A holistic view that does not require concrete adherence to either, but walks a middle path of direct action. Think of something closer to the eastern concept of "empty mind".

Another middle: We are the manifestation of God's will in the world. Thus he has an effect on the world, but it is not necessarily apart from human communication and thought.



Whoops. Expand on this a little. If God is all, then God does not act... but does in that the Universe is in constant motion. It's a tripping point, and the root of the "mysterious ways" shtick. If God is all, everywhere and everywhen, then are we not God? Are we not acting? Are not our actions, our will, the will of God? Is God our collective thought? Are we its puppets? Is it both or perhaps neither?

This is why I said that in the face of such a variety of perceptions of divinity, so many theological sources and explorations, that a binary reduction of the question of divinity is a false one. Like Buddhist questions on enlightenment, it goes on and on without concrete answer or direct flow.

Even in Rich's specific case you're unlikely to get a Set 1/2 answer out of him on this, because some of these are notions he himself ponders and the notions themselves lead to fluidity of thought. They are not neatly categorized, as frustrating as that may seem.

:what:

Bob, does that make any sense to you? If so, please explain it to me. :confused:

I feel like Alan Sokal reading a post-modernism journal here...

[there_is_no_bob]

That is option C. It is not necessarily set 1.Yes, it is.

Let me lay it out differently. These are the definitions of the two sets, from my perspective (and likely from AA's as well):
Set 1:God acts outside of human thought and communication. This says nothing about whether or not God acts through human thought and communication (thtac). God could or could not act thtac, it doesn't matter. This is a very inclusive choice. You could believe God caused a single molecule to be one ten trillionth of a metre away from where it otherwise would have been and this would be the case. It really isn't the exclusionary thing you think it is.

Alternate:God exists (and God* may or may not exist).

Set 2:God acts solely thtac. This is a limited choice. This one is exclusionary.

Alternate:Only God* exists/there is no God.

May add more later. Need to edit previous post. Has glaring error.

Edit 2:Yay, my question has been answered! (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=16445&postcount=45)

[there_is_no_bob]

BTW, Hastor - I've tried to move this discussion out of this Mother Theresa thread and into the Religion vs Reason thread (and I acknowledge that the reason it is here in the first place was my carelessness), but it seems this is the forum that Bob and Northcott are using to continue the discussion so I think I have to bow to the inevitable consequences of my own mistake. :(I'm already talking too goddamned (again, I find this hi-fucking-larious. Maybe the lack of sleep. Aw, shit. Multiple sentences inside brackets inside a tiny little sentence. Must be lack of sleep. Aw, shit. :befuddled: What? I'm the only one who finds infinite loops that make reading a sentence really fucking difficult funny? ) much. There's no way I'm cluttering up another thread!:tongue:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm already talking too goddamned (again, I find this hi-fucking-larious. Maybe the lack of sleep. Aw, shit. Multiple sentences inside brackets inside a tiny little sentence. Must be lack of sleep. Aw, shit. :befuddled: What? I'm the only one who finds infinite loops that make reading a sentence really fucking difficult funny? ) much. There's no way I'm cluttering up another thread!:tongue:

:cool: Fine by me.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Stop Press!

This debate, at least as far as Hastur is concerned, appears to have become moot because of a clarification made by Hastur in this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=16449#post16449).

It seems (though Hastur is yet to confirm this) that there never was an excluded middle, but a false premise (or premises). Now we need to know which premise (or premises) was (were) false, and how...