OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Incomprehension

Entry 694, on 2008-02-11 at 21:41:46 (Rating 4, Religion)

I was just reviewing my list of which prominent world leaders I had dissed recently: George Bush, Bill Gates, Michael Behe,... actually I must be more generous than I thought because the list isn't that extensive! But it seems that the Pope hasn't been the target of my vicious invective recently so I guess its his turn! So what has Pope Benedict XVI done to deserve a bit of abuse? Where do I start...

My basic problem is that this guy seems very unprogressive. OK, we shouldn't expect the leader of a conservative organisation like the Catholic Church to be too forward thinking and liberal, but I thought he could at least do as well as his predecessor. Unfortunately, the church seems to be heading back into ignorance and superstition just after John Paul II started making some progress.

The latest problem is that the Pope has suggested that some areas of scientific research "shatter human dignity", particularly cloning, stem cells, and artificial insemination. I guess that is fairly predictable because he appears to be trying to draw a line which science shouldn't cross. If the church really wants to improve human dignity it could do something about the sexual abuse its priests commonly practice, or maybe clean up its part in the genocide in Rwanda, or maybe tell people contraception is OK and help prevent overpopulation in third world countries.

Even the previous Pope was guilty of similar tactics after he told scientists, including Stephen Hawking, that they shouldn't be studying the origin of the universe because that was the work of god. But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension". And we're supposed to believe this? The only incomprehension was the church thinking it could get away with suppressing the truth. Well it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Many religious people fall back into the "god of the gaps" defence where they find real or imagined gaps in scientific knowledge and sort of insert god as a default explanation of the phenomenon even when there is no good reason to do that. It seems like the Popes want to take that further by either creating more gaps for their beliefs or stopping existing gaps from being closed.

Anybody who looks at the more passive form of the gaps tactic will see that it is a losing strategy because as time goes by less and less gaps exist and religion becomes more and more irrelevant. But the Popes seem to think they will maintain (and maybe even create) gaps by trying to tell scientists what they can and cannot do. I would have thought that after Galileo and Copernicus that idea would have been shown to be impractical.

Even in countries where the religious beliefs of the leader does stop some research (such as Bush in the US stopping state funding of embryonic stem cell research) the overall progress won't be stopped because there will always be other countries or organisations less dependent on political support which will carry on. If there's one thing that history shows us it is that the truth and progress cannot be held back.

When the ignorance of the Catholic Church held up progress in the Western World during the Dark Ages there was still progress being made in the Islamic world (which is highly ironic considering where they are now). Despite the unbelievable stupidity of many people who believe nonsense like creationism even though they live in a civilised country like the US the overall education level and communications available to most people today won't allow the church to gain too much power again.

So the Pope can rant and rave and make a complete doofus of himself as much as he wants but it won't help in the end because he'll just be consigned to the history book as another church leader living in the past instead of facing the reality of the present.

Comment 11 (1280) by SBFL on 2008-03-19 at 02:09:20: (view earlier comments)

Your first paragraph is so full of shit I don't know where to start. Come on OJB, some balance please! Everyone knows that gays are tolerated in the Catholic Church. Look it up....or shut up.

Your second paragraph makes even less sense.

Re: Third paragraaph: OKay you want to compare the Pope to recent dictators - what is your common thread? Where is this "huge amounts of money and gives a lot less back to worthwhile causes" you speak of? Please tell me because I have already spoken of the worthy causes the Church has contributed to. Are you so selfish so as to not respect this?

Comment 12 (1281) by OJB on 2008-03-19 at 17:11:02:

Clearly I didn't intend all of those comments to apply to just the Catholic Church - I was talking about religion in general. According to the American Catholic web site the church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, so that tolerance isn't that impressive, is it!

In the second paragraph I was just saying we need to look at the big picture. If you select certain details and ignore others you can justify anything. Every organisation has some positive points. Is that so hard to understand?

The secrecy surrounding the finances of the church make it hard to give real stats about the financial stuff but the rest is documented in the news. I think the dictator badge fits well.

Comment 13 (1292) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 00:40:11:

"According to the American Catholic web site..." Where is the link to this article? Why do you always not link? While I don't dispute your statement I am skeptical of the fact you continue to refuse to link to your sources. Why? Because you only comment on the bits that suit your view possibly. If we saw the link we might see the bigger picture, and the context, but this wouldn't help your point though would it?

Re 3rd paragraph. That's about as dumb as saying that OJB is a dictator because he doesn't publish his personal financial position on his website. Anyway more on the financial issue on another thread (Deadly Continued).

Comment 14 (1309) by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 11:02:24:

OK, as I have said in other posts, I will link in future. At least I said where I got the information from though, even if it wasn't linked.

What I was saying is that the financial state of the church is difficult to determine accurately, then there's the debate about how to measure the financial value of an organisation. But that wasn't the only part of my point regarding the dictatorial nature of the church anyway.

Comment 15 (1347) by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 22:23:28:

Okay, you did, but as I said, I need to see the context.

If it is difficult to determine, then we shouldn't make assumptions.

I am a member of that organisation and I don't find it dictatorial, at least not in the negative sense that we know of world-renowned dictators.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.