Fall of the Catholic Church

argument from popularity. Its fallacious thinking.

In your opinion they're fairy stories. Not in mine.

Bla bla bla, having religious folk argue that their religion versus that religion is better is like watching fans arguing that superman beats captain marvel using the comics for a source.

It doesn't make it any more real.

Can you really not see the underlying association fallacy you’re making there in your argument which is founded on the premise of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people, doing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deeds? It’s from your perspective - you will decide whether those people involved are good people who were motivated to do what is in your view a bad thing, because of religion, and if people do good deeds, you can legitimately argue that it’s not necessarily motivated by religion.

Consider for example, the legacy of Mother Teresa - to some people, she was a saint, to others; she was not the saint she was ever made out to be. Was she a good person motivated by religion to do bad deeds, or was she a person whose entire motivations were self-serving? Difficult to know either way, but I remain skeptical of Christopher Hitchens account of their meeting, as it seems entirely self-serving on his part -

Hitchens said that "her intention was not to help people", and that she lied to donors about how their contributions were used. "It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty", he said, "She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, 'I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.'"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

That’s not a criticism of Hitchens himself btw. His untimely departure has left something of a void in the public intellectual space, which has unfortunately been filled to some degree by Peterson - let’s just say, I’m not a subscriber. If you’re into that sort of thing though, one of the more thought-provoking students of philosophy I enjoy is a young man by the name of Alex O’ Connor -

https://intellectinterviews.com/2020/05/cosmic-skeptic-moral-philosophy/

In terms of it’s applicability to the discussion, the point being made was that people are motivated by religion to do good deeds. Whether or not they are good people, is an entirely separate argument. Whether or not otherwise good people are motivated by religion to do bad things, is an entirely separate argument again. In the case you’re referring to, they don’t see what they did as a bad thing; on the contrary - they believe what they were doing was a good thing. In any case, they were found guilty of having committed a criminal offence contrary to Common Law, and sentenced accordingly -

The parents were charged with second-degree reckless homicide by the Marathon County district attorney in separate trials. Dale Neumann was convicted on May 22, 2009, and Leilani was convicted on August 1, 2009. On October 6, 2009, both parents were sentenced to 10 years of probation, with six months jail time to be served over a six-year period. On July 3, 2013, by a 6-to-1 margin the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the convictions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Neumann_case

When people refer to their children, they’re not referring to their children in the sense that their children are their property. That’s clearly absurd. When people refer to their children, they are referring to the relationship between them and their children, a relationship based upon the idea of belonging to a family, recognised in law as the fundamental unit of society. That’s not an association fallacy, it’s a fact, and to try and separate them, or to regard children as distinct from their family, their origins, is the fallacious reasoning.

I see it as a good thing that the State is severely limited in terms of how much latitude it has to interfere with the family in pursuit of the common good. It’s a necessary protection in a democratic society where it curbs the potential for people to inflict injustice upon other people on the basis that their behaviour is justified by their ideology -

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/us/texas-supreme-court-abuse-transgender-children.html

We saw it on here when Margaret Cash came to public prominence, there were calls for her children to be separated from her and placed in care. The State’s record in that regard has demonstrated that it is not in children’s best interests to separate them from their families, or to undermine or interfere with the relationship between children and their families. Historically speaking, the people who were targeted for that sort of ill-treatment were those people who did not have the resources to fight a protracted legal battle against the State to have their children returned to the family.

Well not all, to be fair. The Surveys taken at the Bishops Conference in Dublin for example showed some remarkable results. Significant %s of Catholics do not subscribe to, or believe, some of what I would have before considered to be core requirements of considering oneself any kind of Christian. Including belief in an after life and.... the shocking one for me.... even believing there is a god!

Yet they still consider themselves Christian and/or Catholic. And I for one am not about to go around demanding they do or do not use those labels. In fact in my experience (anecdotal I know) it tends to be Christians who go around declaring whether other people are Christian or not.

So what the actual "bedrock" for being a Christian is I do not know. But it does not seem to be what you think it is either.

The second sentence here is simply patently wrong. People can absolutely obtain comfort from delusion. In many forms and in many ways. Whether it be a delusion idea, such as religion.... or something like a medical placebo. So it is absolutely wrong to suggest in any way that delusion and comfort are mutually exclusive. They simply aren't.

The more interesting question therefore is in your first sentence, not your second. Which is to question whether or not comfort through delusion is a good thing or a bad thing. And I do not think that is an easy one to answer with anything other than "it depends".

Let's take an analogy to medicine. If you have pain and you take a pain killer for comfort, is that a good thing? Often yes it is, because the pain is likely transitory anyway so you are obtaining comfort during a temporary discomfort. But doing so too often can result in reliance and addiction to the source of comfort.... and further harm later down the line.

But what if there is ACTUALLY something more serious wrong, such as a wound going septic which can result in anything from amputation to death. Clearly here simply obtaining temporary comfort is not a good thing, but a bad thing if you do not address the underlying cause of the suffering.

I would say the same with religious comfort. It is not defacto a good or bad thing, but is contextual. What will an over reliance on it look like? And if someone is using delusion to comfort something that should actually be directly addressed.... this can be a VERY bad thing. A good example is grief. Dealing with grief and other kinds of trauma quickly is a good thing. Which is why, for example, counsellors were airlifted INTO disaster zones in the US to treat children for trauma and loss. It was considered better to do this in the middle of a disaster at cost and risk, rather than let time pass and get them later.

So if someone is using a delusion, like religion, to mediate the suffering of things like grief at the expense of dealing with that grief.... I would be very hesitant to declare this to be a good thing without caveats and reservation. "Comfort in the hour of need" is something we need to apply cautiously and wisely and with a close eye on any potential costs and harms that come with it.

And the Old Testament, read out weekly at Mass?

Yep, catch them young, plant every seed and wait. Some are bound to grow and spread.

No; I don't know that. Typically, I try to refrain from telling others, that their sincerely held beliefs are delusional.

hospitals, the call to prayer on the national broadcaster etc

I would suggest that billions is not just "a lot of people". Would you agree with that?

You're the one who made the suggestion of fairy tales. Off you go and prove the fairy tale notions you have. Back it up with evidence. And in your case, let's see the extraordinary evidence you so demandingly called out for!

I would say the most important word in your sentence there is "typically". I think it should be contextual. There are absolutely times when we should confront the sincerely held beliefs of others. Especially, but not solely, if the person in question feels moved to espouse them publicly for any reason. And double especially if they espouse them in any way that is consequential, such as in our public halls of power, education or science.

All too often people feel equal to their beliefs which is a bad thing. So they feel that any affront to their beliefs is an affront to them. Which is also delusional. We are not our beliefs. As such some people think it wrong, immoral, or just rude to confront bad ideas as they arise. Or that it somehow shows a lack of "respect".

I think it was Johann Hari who once put it well though when he wrote "I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs".

Well, the tone of the affront and the words used often is the basis for the religious adherent being personally offended. In fact, at times, the affronter will confuse the ideals of criticism (which should be welcomed, as long as the right tone is set, and is not one of vitriol) and just sheer spleen venting hatred.

The response gleaned often will be as a result of the initial outreach. Or perhaps you might think that religious adherents should be treated with derision and are fair game for any kind of verbal abuse?

I think that is contextual too. Derision has it's place, especially when done well using all the higher forms of humor and irony rather than just words from the school yard.

But yes absolutely tone and intent are important. But that is a different discussion. I was replying to the line "I try to refrain from telling others, that their sincerely held beliefs are delusional"

Precisely HOW we go about confronting and highlighting delusion is a useful, but entirely separate, conversation to that one. One I am absolutely happy to have. But I would preface it by making the distinction that it is in fact a tangential conversation.

However there are people, regardless of tone, who feel that ANY affront to their beliefs is an affront to them. My tendency, though I do fail on occasion, is to attack the belief not the holder of the belief. But again derision of a belief can be construed as derision of the holder of the belief, often intentionally and willfully, so they can play the victim card. And we should entertain that not a jot.

"respect people not their ideas" is a mantra I try to adhere to in my life.

it doesnt matter how many people believe something.

thats why they call it faith, cause if you had evidence, it would be a fact and you wouldnt need faith.

Your initial claim that it's all fairy stories. Where's the evidence of that?

In any court, the obligation is on the accuser to prove their claim.

Let's hear your argument.