Must be an eduction failure

Post #132,810 by Arkadiy 12/30/03 2:29:33 PM Reply	Must be an eduction failure on the part of Catholic Church. The guy is a commited atheist now, and cites the absurdity of the Pope's incarnation as an important reason why. (Yes, I know that atheists around here have many other, more valid reasons. Thank you.) -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks
Post #132,812 by deSitter 12/30/03 2:45:05 PM Reply	Re: Must be an eduction failure As far as I can tell, what really distinguishes Catholicism is 1) belief in the actual Eucharist 2) it is very personal (praying not just to God but to various saints, starting with Mary) 3) it is, or at least has been, very service-oriented. The position of Pope is the inevitable outcome of it having emerged from the Roman Empire. -drl
Post #132,817 by ChrisR 12/30/03 2:52:58 PM Reply	Eucharist.. Actually, the doctrine of Eucharist is probably even more refined in the Orthodox tradition. Catholics came up with the doctrine of Transubstantiation about the time of the Reformation (Aquina, et al), but it is a religious doctrine that only makes sense when prodded with a specific theological question. I've always found the Orthodox teaching to be a bit more appealing. With Catholics, the Eucharist is the embodiment of Christ - you partake of the body and blood. With the Orthodox, it's consider more along the lines of communion with Christ at the last supper - it's not so much of Christ coming to you - as you coming to Christ in Communion. But like I said, theology is a study in closed systems.
Post #132,871 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 6:26:47 PM Reply	The pope does not seem to me to be inevitable The Orthodox church arose out of the Roman Empire just as assuredly as the Roman Catholic one did. One structure arose out of the Western Empire, and the other out of the Eastern Empire. I'm not sure that either was a more inevitable result than the other. However I find it interesting that the division between sects matches fairly closely with the division between political boundaries. That doesn't seem to be coincidence to me. I also wonder that the great political split in the Roman Catholic Church, that of Protestant versus Catholic, happened just a few decades after the collapse of the political underpinning for the Orthodox Church, namely the Eastern Roman (by then Byzantine) Empire. Probably coincidence, but surprisingly close. Cheers, Ben PS Observant people will note that I carefully said Roman Catholic Church. There are actually a couple of dozen Catholic Churches, of which the Roman is merely the largest and best known... "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,704 by danreck 1/5/04 4:46:50 PM Reply	Re: The pope does not seem to me to be inevitable The way that I understand it (from many hours of TLC and Discovery Channel viewing) is that other than geological boundaries (hence different mythological basis) had less to do with the initial split than the theological difference in the actual birth of Christ. The basic theological problem arose about whether or not Jesus was born a man or as Son of God. This would mean that Mary either was not too important or very important (the mother of a God). FWIW... Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #132,813 by ChrisR 12/30/03 2:48:17 PM Reply	That's a universal religious problem People tend to believe what they want to believe. And they tend to believe what they want to believe about other religions. Catholic theological doctrine, like all forms of theology, is a closed system. It only makes sense when compared within the assumptions of that theology. From a theological standpoint, you can ask whether a specific doctrine (or dogma) is internally consistent. But it's somewhat hard to compare different theologies with each other. The Catholic theology starts from the premise that the 12 Apostles spoke the truth about Jesus Christ (there was not a New testament until some years later, so scripture could not have been the original authority). Protestant doctrine holds that the original Apostles are the authority and that the New Testament is the best source for determining dogma. Catholic and Orthodox hold that the teaching was conveyed through the church and the bishops, and that this line of authority holds true. The Catholics ultimately unified around the bishop of Rome (aka the Pope). Orthodox hold that each Bishop is an authority as long as that person remains true to tradition. Oddly enough, this line of secession is not merely a Christian issue. The split between Sunni & Shiite Muslims is similar. The Islamics of the Sunni tradition hold that the writings of Mohamed (sp?) are the sole authority (much as the Protestant holds to the Bible). The Islamics of the Shiite tradition hold that one of Mohamed's cousins (i think it was a cousin?) carried a sort of apostolic tradition. It's why the religious leaders in Shia are considered authorities, while the Sunni's denounce their authority. The Shia would be closer to the Orthodox in this case, in that the religious authorities are closer to bishops, with no correlary of a central authority bishop like the Pope. Anyhow, just a few religious tidbits.
Post #132,816 by deSitter 12/30/03 2:52:08 PM Reply	Re: That's a universal religious problem Isn't the Protestant/Catholic schism more a matter of politics? The Pope inherited the Emperor's political status, and many were not happy with that in the northern lands. -drl
Post #132,818 by ChrisR 12/30/03 2:57:15 PM Reply	Yes and no Politics was a definite cause of the schism, in that Rome was both a religious and poltical force. Many of the German lords didn't like cow towwing to the Roman poltical structure, so they happily accepted the reformation efforts of Luther. Although pride would prevent it, most Catholic theologians would have to admit that Luther spoke the truth about the Church. Unfortunately, the response of the CC at the time was the Counter-Reformation which was the worst response imaginable (and the doctrine of infallibility was a direct result of this time period).
Post #132,819 by JayMehaffey 12/30/03 3:02:51 PM Reply	The poltical side is also similar In both cases the split occured in part because the existing centralized religion became excessivly corrupt. This sparked a backlash movement that had to find authority and place faith in something other then the central church. The Islamic side was never as centralized as the Christian side, but they let themselves become a tool of the corrupt and unpopular government of the era. Of course, the Catholic church was a major government in and of itself, with a list of problems that would take a book to list. Jay
Post #132,820 by deSitter 12/30/03 3:06:46 PM Reply	Re: The poltical side is also similar Now that the Jews have a definite political structure, I suppose we can expect a similar schism to appear in that religion. For all I know it's already happened. -drl
Post #132,862 by Arkadiy 12/30/03 5:50:31 PM Reply	Jews went thorough this long ago This is not the first time that Jews had a definite political structure :) I am not quite sure what battles happened back then, but the end result was: all truth is in Torah, but Torah cannot be properly interpreted without a huge oral tradition coming from Moses via Aaron, his sons and discipples and so on. So it seems that Jews managed to sintethize Protestantism and Catolicism. -- "It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)" -- James Lileks
Post #132,873 by JayMehaffey 12/30/03 6:35:06 PM Reply	Probably happened multiple times Major splits in the Jewish religion have happened many times, but often the only reference we have is the Torah itself and it is by no means an unbiased source. Nor does it tend to record anything but the religous aspects of the disputes, even though many of them obviously had geographic, poltical or other significant aspects. Evidence suggests that the Christian religion itself was split off because of such a dispute. The movement that spawned the Christian religion became a major movement in Isreal because the population was angry with the way the leaders and high priests where selling out to the Romans. Once again this was a religious / poltical dispute where a significant portion of the population turned away from the previously accepted central authority. Jay
Post #132,824 by orion 12/30/03 3:20:30 PM Reply	Well he could have taken other courses of action didn't have to be Catholic, could have become Luthern, Prodistant, NonDenominational, Baptist, etc and not follow the Pope. He could have also become a Buddist, they don't believe in a God, just Budda, Karma, and Enlightenment and other things. If I wasn't Cathloic or a Christian I'd be a Buddist rather than an Atheist, but then that is just me. I just don't see the benefits of becoming an Atheist, it just wouldn't work for me. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,827 by deSitter 12/30/03 3:22:08 PM Reply	Stay out of it, OK? (new thread) Created as new thread #132826 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=132826\|Stay out of it, OK?] -drl
Post #132,872 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 6:33:23 PM Reply	You don't become atheist for "benefits" There are no benefits to declaring yourself an atheist, except for the satisfaction of telling the truth about what you are. There is nobody to pray to, no sense that the world cares about you, no comforting thoughts about what will happen when people that you care about die. Virtually anything else would be a more comfortable belief system. However the one thing that is not more comforting, at least for some people, is pretending to believe what you really don't. At least for me, atheism is not a choice that I made, it is a conclusion that I came to. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #132,884 by orion 12/30/03 7:55:25 PM Reply	While I respect your beliefs and the right to have them, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept them as my personal beliefs. I feel there is a higher power out there, I have spiritually felt it. I can see the effects of a higher power on the universe. I believe that higher power to be God. I need a religion to tell me what is right or wrong, I need to believe in something greater than myself. I need forgiveness for my mistakes/sins. I seek the truth and enlightnement, and so far everything I have learned or experienced points back to a creator. I do not believe that to be a lie, no evidence I have seen has disproven God. I do not believe in all this universe happening by random chance, and life happening by random chance, it was well thought out and planed. If I don't have these benefits, I would surely go insane, more so than I already have in the past. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #132,889 by ben_tilly 12/30/03 9:01:08 PM Reply	Then don't accept them I have no reason to want to convince anyone else to believe as I do. If you think that atheism would drive you even more insane, then for your sanity's sake, continue to believe in God. There is only one detail that I have to add to your understanding. And that detail is that the odds of this universe happening by random chance are indeterminate. More precisely, what you think those odds are strongly depend on your initial beliefs about the likelyhood of the Universe, ourselves in the Universe, God, etc. The upshot is that arguments about how amazing the Universe is will tend to confirm people's existing beliefs, so that the same argument which is utterly convincing to you is utterly unconvincing to me. [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5r9e9a%24tq2%241%40dartvax.dartmouth.edu&rnum=2\|http://groups.google...tmouth.edu&rnum=2] goes into this at some length. And an observation. You have cited a long list of benefits that you get out of your beliefs. I do not disagree with that list. In fact lacking your beliefs makes me very aware of how much harder it is to live without an easily invoked emotional crutch. Inconveniently for me, I can't stand on a crutch that I don't believe in, but I can appreciate the value that it could have. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,849 by danreck 1/6/04 11:36:03 AM 1/6/04 12:03:53 PM Reply	Something interesting for you... is this particular response/critique of the Anthropic Philosophy... [link\|http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html\|http://www.leaderu.c.../docs/barrow.html] For parsimony, this is one of many coherent critiques on a simple Google search. Why don't you just come over to the dark side, Ben. Agnosticism makes most of these points mute and you don't have to argue with anyone. [link\|http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blag_origins.htm\|http://atheism.about.../blag_origins.htm] After editing, I thought you might be interested in this article, as I believe it does more justice to the history of Agnosticism... [link\|http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/h_j_blackham/agnostic.html\|http://www.infidels....ham/agnostic.html] FWIW. Just a few thoughts, Danno Edited by danreck Jan. 6, 2004, 12:03:53 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,885 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 2:12:44 PM Reply	There is a reason that I do not call myself an agnostic By the technical definitions I am both an atheist and an agnostic. However most people don't understand the technical definitions, and get a more accurate impression of my views if I describe myself as an atheist. Obviously my views don't change depending on which label I choose, they are what they are. However people fail to understand that it is perfectly reasonable to both be certain that there is no absolute way to prove or disprove God's existence, but I find myself with an utter lack of belief in God. Therefore I feel that it is somewhat dishonest to describe myself as an agnostic when I'm sure that I'll be misunderstood to be waffling on the question of God's (non)existence. Conversely it irritates me to see fundamentalist Christians who publically claim to be agnostics simply because they think that that is a better position to argue from. Be accurate, even when it is inconvenient for you. Now to the response that you gave of the Anthropic Principle. It misses exactly what [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5r9e9a%24tq2%241%40dartvax.dartmouth.edu&rnum=2\|my post] said is often missed. When factoring in the results of an observation, how surprised we are at the thing observed is irrelevant to any conclusions. What matters in drawing conclusions are ratios of probabilities. Quoting from my article: First of all only half of the argument that needs to be presented has been attempted here. The side that has been totally ignored is how likely it is a priori that there is a designer, who is interested in creating intelligent life, who would actually do it by designing a universe like this, and who is capable of doing it. Given that the person presenting the argument believes that there is such a designer (indeed the individual often believes that they know what the designer is like) this oversight is understandable. However from the point of view of an atheist (such as myself) this is a major flaw since, to me, the assumption of an intelligent God capable of creating the universe, is a more unlikely thing (a priori) than the observed universe... So no, the interpretation of the Anthropic Principle is far from being as simple as many would have it. But neither is it as trivially rejected as your article would have it. Furthermore the effect of the Anthropic Principle, fully analyzed, is to cause any person who is already convinced to become further convinced of their original position. It therefore is a great way to sound convincing to your own ears while completely missing the other person. Which is an important point that you don't often hear from anyone. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,895 by danreck 1/6/04 3:18:37 PM 1/6/04 4:28:08 PM Reply	Thanks for the clarification I am keeping my options open, however. I do respect your honesty and conviction. There is still room for a Christian God in my Agnosticism, however improbable. To clarify my personal position, this is not a social convenience for me to mask atheism. I truly believe that it is impossible to determine the nature of our existance given all of our limitations (scope, observation, reproduceability (sp?), et al.) I do not believe it is a waste of time to ponder or even debate (obviously), but I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion, so most times, I choose not to debate. I am fascinated by the work of science. I make my living on computers. I read Scientific American, POPSCI, and POPMech for pleasure. I am almost giddy that we are on Mars finding out some damned real answers. I am absolutely amazed by the genius of the technology that put us there. I am definately not anti-science or progress. I am just a die hard skeptic. It seems wise to remember things like the Titanic et al when humankind starts feeling cocky. Certain events in my life have made me think that our five senses aren't enough to comprehend the scope of even this planet. Shit, look at B.F. Skinner. All he set out to do was to insist on scientific method in Psychology. He spent most of the rest of his life trying to distance himself, one huge mea culpa (one he didn't need to make). I view all of modern science as I view Skinner. If you try to limit your scope only to what is measurable, quantifiable and reproduceable you may be able to predict certain behaviors but it, in no way, gives any understanding of the complexity of conciousness nor how it came into being. Nor it's true purpose or potential. Etc. Right now, as we reverse engineer the human genome, we may be able to reproduce some aspects, but we are not the originators nor do we have much understanding of why or how. We are the Microsoft Engineers in this equation. :-O My fear is that we will duplicate MS's work with similar results. The world needs true agnostics (or skeptics or philosophers) to keep the rest of the world in line. YMMV. Just a few thoughts, Danno Edited by danreck Jan. 6, 2004, 04:28:08 PM EST Expand All History
Post #134,030 by Ashton 1/7/04 5:22:07 AM Reply	What a Horrifying thought! Human genome 'interpretation' via Microsoft 'science-light' !! (on a par with 'Christianity' by Ashcroft?) {ugly} {ugly} Sadist!

Welcome to IWETHEY!