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 1 (1122) by SBFL on 2008-02-11 at 22:59:50: (view recent only)

Typical subjective diatribe we come to expect from OJB. Not enough energy nor time to go through it point but I will summise:

Sure the Church has made mistakes - after all it is a church made up of the people, made up of sinners. Funny though that even when it admits its mistakes, the likes of OJB still slag it off. No redemption there! An objective commentator will of course point out the many good things that have come from the Church as well - if only to add creditability to their argument but OJB cannot even do this. He is too busy pointing out the thorn in other peoples eyes without realising the log in his own.

Interesting also that the ills of society past are blamed only on the Church, and never on the governments of the day, nor - more importantly - on the culture that existed in the community of the time. But then again, what easier a target for the anti-Catholics of todays world?

By the way OJB, in case you hadn't noticed the Pope doesn't make a habit of 'ranting and raving'. Only doofus bloggers like yourself and commenters like me do that!!

Comment 2 (1123) by SBFL on 2008-02-11 at 23:01:41:

Ahhh, you have allowed auto-approval of comments. Good move. I will go to town on all you other posts now! Just kidding ;-).

Comment 3 (1138) by OJB on 2008-02-12 at 09:55:28:

The problems I had with the apology (and the reason I mentioned it at all) were this: 1, they haven't learnt from their mistake because they are still trying to stifle progress (in a less severe way admittedly); and 2, the wording "tragic mutual incomprehension" makes it sound like it was Galileo's fault as much as the church's and that it wasn't deliberate. I don't believe that.

I'm not sure what these many good things that have come from the church are. I'm sure there are some good things because there is some good in everything. Its just a matter of the balance of good and bad. And I was specifically discussing scientific and social progress here.

I think the specific "ills" I was discussing can be mainly blamed on the church. If I was discussing problems which arose from another source I would have assigned the blame appropriately.

I'm not against Catholics as people. I'm against the church itself, but I don't blame the policies of the church on its members: they don't get to vote for their Pope. I do blame them for being too weak to escape from the indoctrination of the church but I guess that's harder than it seems. After all, I was lucky enough not to be subjected to a church's propaganda when I was young and impressionable!

Comment 4 (1140) by OJB on 2008-02-12 at 12:14:57:

Fair enough, I do agree that the Pope doesn't rant and rave - that was unfair - a throw away line at the end of the blog entry. Or maybe its a case of projection! :)

Comment 5 (1147) by SBFL on 2008-02-12 at 22:47:59:

1st paragraph - don't follow, please elaborate? Maybe it comes down to interpretation of progress. For instance, do you agree the legality of the murder of the unborn child is progress? Hmmm...

2nd paragraph - classic ignorance. Providing welfare, health, education anyone....especially in 3rd world countries. Caritas, Oxfam, St Vincent de Paul, etc. I know you strongly disagree with Christian belief but at least give credit where credit is due. Otherwise you are just another ignorant hardliner...you're not one of those are you OJB?

4th paragraph - the Church is the people. They are not mutually exclusive. You should not try to make simple pigeon holes where they do not exist. In saying that I acknowledge that there those within the community that didn't speak for the people. Hardly unexpected in such a large organisation. Unfortunate though.

Comment 6 (1159) by OJB on 2008-02-13 at 10:33:22:

My point was that in the 16th century they tried to stifle the truth from people like Galileo, now they are trying to do the same to cosmologists. OK, so they aren't trying to arrest Stephen Hawking but the mentality remains the same.

I didn't mention abortion in the original post and it is something that I can't really decide about - yes there are some things I don't hold strong opinions on. In general though, I think abortion at a very early stage of development is OK because we aren't really talking about a thinking, feeling person at that point.

There are many non religious organisations doing similar good work, and I suspect (although I don't have the stats) that they use a far greater proportion of total wealth for the charity work. They also don't engage in as much proselytising!

The church is not people. The church is an institution run by an elite group which gains its power and wealth by using its members in a very cynical way. If the church was people it would be more democratic and the people would decide what is right and wrong instead of having it dictated by some old guy in Rome!

Comment 7 (1195) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 00:43:48:

"because we aren't really talking about a thinking, feeling person at that point." - but that it what an unborn child becomes, early or not. Argument for another day I guess though.

"There are many non religious organisations doing similar good work - and you don't see me slagging them off. Doesn't stop you criticising the church, ignoring the good deeds you cannot deny. You only focus on what you don't like. I prefer to consider the agreeable as well as the disagreeable.

"they use a far greater proportion of total wealth for the charity work." - really? how did you come to that conclusion (with or without the stats)? And BTW, govt departments don't count since a) they are reflective of the whole of society and b) seriously doubt the greater proportion theory!!

"The church is not people. " You are so fundamentally wrong, it may in fact be the catalyst behind so many of your false accusations. You look from the outside and draw a cynical and biased view based on such limited knowledge. If you were a member, you might be a bit more pragmatic.

Comment 8 (1203) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 09:36:51:

Before the nervous system is developed the fetus is neither thinking nor feeling. Where the point is that they do think or feel is uncertain. And I still don't think that necessarily makes abortion right. As I have said before I find it a difficult issue.

I don't "slag off" religion for its good work, I criticise it for its denial of truth, unnecessary control of its members, and its propensity to stifle progress (plus a lot of other things). Most genuine charitable organisations don't suffer from these negative "side effects".

Do I need to find the stats? You tell me what proportion of the Catholic church's wealth goes to genuine charity work and then compare that with a real charity. I think we both already know the answer, but I'll find the numbers if you disagree.

Being a member is likely to cloud my judgement and give me a very biased opinion. If the Catholic church was really about its people why don't those people get to participate in the decisions currently handed down from their dictator in Rome?

Comment 9 (1214) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 21:40:46:

Like I said they become thinking and feeling (at least) when they are born, if it is even earlier then even more case against abortion. Respect you believe it a difficult issue.

No, I agree, but you fail to recognize the positives. You always focus on your perceived negatives hence your arguments are rarely balanced. You even say silly thing like "control of its members" like it's similar to the Borg of Star Trek!! Ditto "Side effects".

No, because I think we have crossed wires here. You want to name your charity and compare to Oxfam, Caritas, St Vincent de Paul and religious orders devoted to a charitable cause? I can't see this as being productive. You will need to define wealth. My point being that you fail to recognise the undeniable positives of the Church (even if you disagree with their beliefs, and even if you like to focus on the negatives).

"Dictator of Rome" - term that indicates your inherent bias. Are you comparing the Pope to the recognised dictators of the world? By your logic a non-atheist has more authority on atheism than an atheist - nice one. "Being a member is likely to cloud my judgement and give me a very biased opinion."

Comment 10 (1217) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 22:25:11:

Well churches do control their members with various tricks. Examples. Its against God's wishes for you to use contraception. If you are gay you will go to Hell. Kill the infidels and you will go to paradise. Just a few examples.

I was talking about the church as a whole, not small parts of it. It is possible that components of the church might be good on balance but I was referring to the big picture. I would need to research the policies of the organisations you mention and get back to you about them before commenting specifically.

Yes, I am comparing the Pope to dictators. Do you think that's unfair? He is placed into power without the approval of the members of the church. He leads an organisation which extracts huge amounts of money and gives a lot less back to worthwhile causes. Members of his organisation engage in genocide. He uses various questionable tactics to gain members in third world countries. He makes decisions which are binding without popular consent. Yep. He's a dictator all right!

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

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.