The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

looksee

Can any of the religious posters tell me what specific aspects of Catholicism you feel should have legal protection and be given active participation in the running of the country? Aspects that would be removed by the adoption of secularism.

Further, how do you propose other religions should have equal input - to give a very small example, should the Dail have a separate prayer proposed by every different religious group before they get to work? Would they each be supplied with prayer mats and kippahs?

Absolam

Wouldn't that very much depend on what your notion of 'adoption of secularism' entails? I mean arguably we've adopted secularism already; the State may not endow religions, it can't discriminate between religious education providers, and I can't think of any service that the State provides which differs depending on one's religion, save at one's own request. If the idea of adopting secularism were extended to suppressing religion, say by withdrawing funding from religious schools, or preventing members of religions from having a say in State or public affairs, then I'd guess those are the legally protected things that religious (and even irreligious libertarian) people would want to see continue to be protected?

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I can't speak for most people in general myself, but I can say that that's simply not true of most people in my experience. My observation is not that the changes in the Church have caused them to lose interest, but they were simply never interested. If anything, regardless of your opinion of the Church's rightful position, it would seem its changes garner it more interest rather than less, certainly if A&A is anything to go by.

I would imagine most atheists post on here out of idle curiosity. I wouldn't take this forum as a benchmark for interest in the Catholic church. For almost all of the people I know, their enforced engagement with the church was not positive and they left because they found it a negative experience and/or its teachings were no longer relevant to them. I engage in conversation with a lot of people socially and through my work. I rarely hear Catholicism being discussed. If you do, then maybe that's because we move in different circles.

Oh, I think we can confidently say that the way most adults behaved towards children back then would be construed as physical and mental abuse these days, they didn't need to be 'within Catholicism' to do it.

Perhaps within the home. Different times as you say. But that doesn't excuse the mental, physical and sexual abuse by the teaching orders, clergy and orphanages towards children placed in their care. And the subsequent attempts at cover up.

Though it seems a bit of a non sequitur to harp about blaming children for it.... it doesnt really seem to follow from the idea that atheists aren't interested in the Church.

I don't understand this.

Trying to slide in a bit of an agenda item there?

Am I? Pray tell.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Can any of the religious posters tell me what specific aspects of Catholicism you feel should have legal protection and be given active participation in the running of the country? Aspects that would be removed by the adoption of secularism.

As taxpayers, everyone should be entitled to lobby the state on how it spends their money and makes the laws under which we all have to live. This should be allowed individually or collectively via institutions to which individual citizens belong, such as churches, trades unions, etc.
A definition of secularism as something that grossly discriminates against religious institutions and those who belong to them is a rather 'toxic' definition of secularism IMO. It smacks of something approaching totalitarianism rather than something approriate to a liberal inclusive democracy.

looksee wrote: »

Further, how do you propose other religions should have equal input - to give a very small example, should the Dail have a separate prayer proposed by every different religious group before they get to work? Would they each be supplied with prayer mats and kippahs?

Obviously, it should be allowed that each TD pray in accordance with his/her religion and for those who have no religion, they could try meditating or reciting something that is meaningful to them as they prepare to start their day as legislators.
There is no real difficulty with achieving proper respect for all religions and none ... where there is a will there is a way.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Wouldn't that very much depend on what your notion of 'adoption of secularism' entails? I mean arguably we've adopted secularism already; the State may not endow religions, it can't discriminate between religious education providers, and I can't think of any service that the State provides which differs depending on one's religion, save at one's own request. If the idea of adopting secularism were extended to suppressing religion, say by withdrawing funding from religious schools, or preventing members of religions from having a say in State or public affairs, then I'd guess those are the legally protected things that religious (and even irreligious libertarian) people would want to see continue to be protected?

Sorry Absolam, I am not going to take your bait to repeat a lot of arguments that have been done before, or to go off down your side path.

Just because you say 'arguably we have adopted secularism already' does not mean that we have. If we are already secular why have their been so many arguments 'this is a Catholic country and the majority prefer...(to maintain the status quo)'? That is a rhetorical question.

I would be interested in an answer to the actual question, not your attempt at diversion.

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I would imagine most atheists post on here out of idle curiosity. I wouldn't take this forum as a benchmark for interest in the Catholic church.

Gosh, neither would I, hence my saying that most people of my acquaintance have never been interested. The prurient attention hereabouts I think is more evident of the small minority I mentioned earlier.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps within the home. Different times as you say. But that doesn't excuse the mental, physical and sexual abuse by the teaching orders, clergy and orphanages towards children placed in their care. And the subsequent attempts at cover up.

Well of course; nothing excuses any abuses by anyone, regardless of their religious affiliations, does it?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't understand this.

You decided to weigh in on an observation about atheist views of religion with a rather heavy handed swipe at blaming children abused by members of the Church for having a biased view of it when they are adults. Since nobody was blaming them, it seems oddly out of place.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Am I? Pray tell.

I was rather hoping you'd tell us; hence the question.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

Gosh, neither would I, hence my saying that most people of my acquaintance have never been interested. The prurient attention hereabouts I think is more evident of the small minority I mentioned earlier.

It's a pity that you are selectively quoting me. Anyway, your use of 'prurient' makes no sense. Why would people with an excessive interest in sexual matters be posting on a thread about atheism????

Well of course; nothing excuses any abuses by anyone, regardless of their religious affiliations, does it?

Absolutely not.

You decided to weigh in on an observation about atheist views of religion with a rather heavy handed swipe at blaming children abused by members of the Church for having a biased view of it when they are adults. Since nobody was blaming them, it seems oddly out of place.

You said this:

My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.

I was just clarifying your very ambiguous statement above. Note the piece in bold. Here, I'll repeat what I said so that we are both clear: Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.

Glad we cleared any possible ambiguity up.

I was rather hoping you'd tell us; hence the question

.

I'll tell you as it was only you who asked the question. No agenda. Just passing idle time pleasurably. Any agenda yourself?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Sorry Absolam, I am not going to take your bait to repeat a lot of arguments that have been done before, or to go off down your side path. Just because you say 'arguably we have adopted secularism already' does not mean that we have. If we are already secular why have their been so many arguments 'this is a Catholic country and the majority prefer...(to maintain the status quo)'? That is a rhetorical question. I would be interested in an answer to the actual question, not your attempt at diversion.

You may well think it's a diversion to ask you to set out your premise if you truly expect an actual answer, but I can't help but suspect that when you don't get the answers you like, you're more likely to tell us it's the fault of those who couldn't answer it....

If it helps at all though, I think we've only had one single poster offer the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in well over a year; it tends to be a phrase far more often used by anti-theists on behalf of those they are attacking. So there haven't been so many of those arguments put forward really....

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.

Because it is what most Catholics in this country want perhaps? Those who declare as Catholic in this country would long since appear to have shown two fingers to Rome, as can be seen with attitudes to contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, taking vocations and even regularly attending church. As recently evidenced in the National Maternity Hospital debacle, the people of this country have become very wary of church involvement in any state bodies.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I think we've only had one single poster offer the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in well over a year

Whoaa there Hoss, we've just had Frostyjacks do just that in the last post I quoted.

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's a pity that you are selectively quoting me. Anyway, your use of 'prurient' makes no sense. Why would people with an excessive interest in sexual matters be posting on a thread about atheism????

If you'd like to add anything to the quote, feel free, I don't mind. Pruriance isn't just related to sexual matters, it denotes something marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire. For instance, a person fixated to the point of obsession with the activities of an organization they're not involved with but feel compelled to counter might be said to have a prurient interest.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You said this: <..>I was just clarifying your very ambiguous statement above. <...>The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.Glad we cleared any possible ambiguity up.

I think maybe you missed the point. I wasn't restricting myself to those for whom the Church was the authority figure (hence the fact that they would use religion/the Church as a substitute in later life). Unambiguously not a word at all about blame because I'm not saying anything about blaming people at all. I said that some people may need something to rail against, and the Church serves that purpose for them, even if it isn't why they need to do so in the first place.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Whoaa there Hoss, we've just had Frostyjacks do just that in the last post I quoted.

Oddly enough Frostyjacks is indeed the single poster who I believe has offered the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in the last year, though in that particular post he said this is not a secular country as per our constitution, so I think he may have been more implying this is a notionally Christian country, much like the USA in that regard. One way or the other... yep Frostyjacks is the single poster I've noticed offer that argument. Though Pherekydes, MrP, Hotblack etc etc have often offered counters to it nonetheless.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

If you'd like to add anything to the quote, feel free, I don't mind. Pruriance isn't just related to sexual matters, it denotes something marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire. For instance, a person fixated to the point of obsession with the activities of an organization they're not involved with but feel compelled to counter might be said to have a prurient interest.

'Prurience'

Oxford Dictionaries full definition : Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.

Merriam Webster full definition: Marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire

It is confined to sexual matters only. Which is why I asked you about your strange use of the word on the context of the discussion.

I think you may ahve found it ambiguous because you missed the point. When I said people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up, obviously I wasn't restricting myself to those for whom the Church was the authority figure (hence the fact that they would use religion/the Church as a substitute in later life). Less ambiguous than broad, and obviously not a word at all about blame; I'm not saying anything about blaming people at all. I'm saying that some people may need something to rail against, and the Church serves that purpose for them, even if it isn't why they need to do so in the first place.

I agree. When the Church was coming under fierce and valid criticism in recent decades, it also became the lightning rod for many societal wrongs for which it wasn't culpable. I think that has greatly lessened in very recent years.

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

'Prurience'
Oxford Dictionaries full definition : Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.
Merriam Webster full definition: Marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire
It is confined to sexual matters only. Which is why I asked you about your strange use of the word on the context of the discussion.

This is rather off topic, so I'll just point out the word 'especially' in your MW definition which demonstrates it is not confined to, but particularly applies to, sexual desire, and leave it at that.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

This is rather off topic, so I'll just point out the word 'especially' in your MW definition which demonstrates it is not confined to, but particularly applies to, sexual desire, and leave it at that.

Agreed. We'll leave it to the lexicographers.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Oddly enough Frostyjacks is indeed the single poster who I believe has offered the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in the last year, though in that particular post he said this is not a secular country as per our constitution, so I think he may have been more implying this is a notionally Christian country, much like the USA in that regard. One way or the other... yep Frostyjacks is the single poster I've noticed offer that argument. Though Pherekydes, MrP, Hotblack etc etc have often offered counters to it nonetheless.

FrostyJacks for sure, J C has also used this argument as can be seen here, I don't doubt there are others were one to have the patience to wade through the past years posts.

J C

getting back on topic ... here is a video that explores the (lack of) evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

This is your second warning for dumping videos JC.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

getting back on topic ... here is a video that explores the (lack of) evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

What did you find the most compelling part of the video?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

What did you find the most compelling part of the video?

The change in attitiude as each conversation proceeded.
The people interviewed were mostly self-professed atheists and science post grads or eminent scientists. They mostly changed from total confidence in both Evolution and the non-existence of God ... to much lower confidence in both ideas.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

FrostyJacks for sure, J C has also used this argument as can be seen here, I don't doubt there are others were one to have the patience to wade through the past years posts.

Well, JC certainly said there that most of the population claim to be Christian, so I suppose if we completely diminish the argument "there been so many arguments that this is a Catholic country" to the rather broader "a couple of posters occasionally allude to how many people claim to be religious" we'd certainly be looking at a more honest assessment of the facts, though the honest rendition lacks the polemic quality I think looksee was trying to deliver; if in fact there have not been so many such arguments, then maybe we are indeed already secular, and everyone can go for tea and buns.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Ireland is a State which is secular (bar the odd bit of lip service here and there) in how it operates, influenced of course by a history that is primarily Christian and a population that continues to be largely Christian though significantly less religiously observant than in previous centuries, like most western nations. We're becoming more multicultural, pantheistic, and libertarian which seems to generally be an enriching experience all round.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Ireland is a State which is secular (bar the odd bit of lip service here and there) in how it operates, influenced of course by a history that is primarily Christian and a population that continues to be largely Christian though significantly less religiously observant than in previous centuries, like most western nations. We're becoming more multicultural, pantheistic, and libertarian which seems to generally be an enriching experience all round.

Without repeating all the debate going on in other threads, my opinion is that involvement of religious orders in running publicly funded schools and hospitals and laws against blasphemy preclude Ireland from being secular. I would consider we're becoming post-religious more so than pantheistic, as religion for many seems little more than a lingering cultural artefact.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Without repeating all the debate going on in other threads, my opinion is that involvement of religious orders in running publicly funded schools and hospitals and laws against blasphemy preclude Ireland from being secular . . .

As a matter of interest, is there any liberal democracy which you would consider secular?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The change in attitiude as each conversation proceeded.
The people interviewed were mostly self-professed atheists and science post grads or eminent scientists. They mostly changed from total confidence in both Evolution and the non-existence of God ... to much lower confidence in both ideas.

So you'd no problem when the interviewer Godwinned the video?

I.e. suggested that 'survival of the fittest' was what was happening as Hitler killed millions?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

As a matter of interest, is there any liberal democracy which you would consider secular?

To be honest, I don't spend that much time looking at the ins and outs of religious involvement in other countries. From what I've read, France seems the most commonly referenced example, though laïcité does seem to be a more severe interpretation of secularism than that espoused by the National Secular Society which seeks balance between freedom of religion with freedom from religion. Personally, I'd favour the latter.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

To be honest, I don't spend that much time looking at the ins and outs of religious involvement in other countries. From what I've read, France seems the most commonly referenced example, though laïcité does seem to be a more severe interpretation of secularism than that espoused by the National Secular Society which seeks balance between freedom of religion with freedom from religion. Personally, I'd favour the latter.

France provides public funding for church schools and church hospitals, though. Doesn't that rule it out, according to your criteria?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Without repeating all the debate going on in other threads, my opinion is that involvement of religious orders in running publicly funded schools and hospitals and laws against blasphemy preclude Ireland from being secular. I would consider we're becoming post-religious more so than pantheistic, as religion for many seems little more than a lingering cultural artefact.

My own feeling is that a State which refuses funding to organisations on the basis that they're religious isn't really secular at all, it's anti-theist. I'd agree that there are plenty of post religious people about, but I'll admit I was more thinking about how much more diverse Ireland has become; we now have many more religions, and a lot of them have adherants at least as fervent as the ones we're used to had at their height in this country. So the idea that we're post religious as a country would seem to me to be an erroneously narrow one. Maybe just post fanatically Catholic

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

France provides public funding for church schools and church hospitals, though. Doesn't that rule it out, according to your criteria?

I would consider France more secular than Ireland, in that public schools exclude religious instruction. Yes, it does provide funding for private religious schools, almost entirely Catholic AFAIK, but not public ones. This amounts to about 17% of school-going children, and has been the subject of criticism from secular organisations. My take on it as previously stated is that the ideal solution is to find a balance that is equitable and non-discriminatory for all concerned, which is clearly not the case in this country. Whether or not other countries do it better or worse is somewhat moot.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

getting back on topic ... here is a video that explores the (lack of) evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

Given that you've just dumped another link onto the thread JC, I'm not sure what this video is supposed to be an argument for. It certainly doesn't offer any positive evidence for your views. Neither does it offer any kind of challenge to the evidence for evolution. For the most part it is comprised of very selectively edited quote mined soundbytes coupled with Ray Comfort's juvenile and ignorant comments about his own twisted views on evolution.

Comfort dishonestly quote mined the video to make it look as if his "challenges" went unanswered. As PZ Myers noted (emphasis his not mine):

"I was one of those scientists. NO, I did not disagree with Dawkins about evolution or the evidence for evolution; NO, nothing I said provided any support to creationist claims; NO, there is not a lack of evidence for evolution.


Further, in email correspondence Comfort admits to selective editing of the video (emphasis mine):

"But in “Evolution vs. God” PZ gets to talk as much as or even more than anyone in the entire movie. Of course it was “selectively edited.” That’s what editors do. They remove the mundane and irrelevant and select that which is interesting–and a lot of what he said certainly was interesting. When I do interviews I fully expect to be cut back to that which the producers believe is relevant to their theme. After all, it’s their program."

Comfort's theme is to misrepresent the scientists in the video in an act of, what Craig Stanford (featured in the video) calls biblical porn:

"I know this will offend some people in the evangelical community who may be listening but that video to me is a great example of what I would call biblical porn. It's a whole set of images and words that are really intended mainly to titillate and excite evangelicals. There's actually no actual inquiry in that video into science vs. creationism,"

PZ Myers explains the difference between what is seen and the video and what transpired in the interview:

"Comfort came to me asking for the evidence for evolution. The way it went is that he would a) ask for evidence, b) I would give him an example (like the research on sticklebacks or bacteria), c) Comfort would raise an irrelevant objection (they’re still fish! They’re still bacteria!), and d) I would explain why his objection was invalid, and how his expectations of the nature of the evidence were wrong. Somehow, though, in the movie (d) always ended up on the cutting room floor, so that he could announce in all of his promotional materials and in the movie itself that I was unable to provide any evidence for evolution."

Sources:

Lie harder, little man
Ray Comfort confesses
USC Professor Craig Stanford Claims Ray Comfort’s ‘Evolution vs. God’ Documentary Is ‘Biblical Porn’


Now, of course, even if we didn't have evidence of this kind of dishonesty on Comfort's part, he's still demonstrably wrong.

The first five minutes or so of the video is taken up with rapid cuts of Comfort interviewing academics and undergrads about the evidence for evolution asking them for observable evidence of evolution. When, inevitably, most of the respondents direct him to the fossil record, Comfort responds that something which happened 65 million years ago is not observable and would require faith (which is of course wrong). Of course, we have examples of modern observed instances of speciation, like this one of a new species of mosquito being discovered in the London underground, having diverged from a surface population:

Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

Of course, when Comfort is later confronted with similar examples by PZ, he responds with the cliched creationist response that: "but they're still fish" or "they're still bacteria" which shows just how clueless he is of what evolution is in the first place.

There's nothing to see in this video. There's no inquiry or challenge for evolutionists and nothing but false hope for creationists.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

My own feeling is that a State which refuses funding to organisations on the basis that they're religious isn't really secular at all, it's anti-theist.

Hardly so if such religious organisations are the only provider of an essential service the state is mandated to provide for the vast majority of the population. This is clearly the situation in Ireland, where the vast majority of the population have no choice to avail of a state funded education other than one that imposes a religious ethos. This is not secular by any standards.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There's nothing to see in this video.

Thanks for that, that's 38 minutes not gone to waste here