All Comments (117)

What really needs to be changed is the Catholic Church's stance.. on the worship of Christ Himself. The emphasis that it originated as a church of the true concept of "God", trying (and suceeding) to convert followers AWAY from Christ &/or His disciples (except Peter?) & into more natural 'pagan' origins, which are not contrary to God the Creator's ways.
Christ should still be worshipped, but as for what He actually WAS for once..
And to point out that his death was necessary in the selfless sacrifice to humanity for 'screwing up in the 1st place' with the 10 commandments, forgetting to clarify *it* when preachign to the broader masses - the 'gentiles' etc - or perhaps his scribes/disciples/apostles, in their scriptures, hence why i believe Jesus's quote about "scribes! hypocrits!" - he was probably angry at them not the High priests & the High Priests mucked up, thinkign Jesus was their enemy?, hence why only one person ended up his 'beloved' & why the others hated Him..... as in not notifying that these rules were only there previously in the days of Moses for the Israelites of the time to keep things kinda organised while making their silly little Exodus & , as the Hebrews were always terrible in judgement without them as a race, as God made them that way. This is not racist, but a acknolwedgement that each of different races have their collective positives & minuses, the way The 'Father' created us (humanity).
The Catholic Church also needs to be more open on its roots that it is a Church that worships many different dieties & sees neither Christ nor the Devil as principalities in "black or white" that any should be loathed, to speak , except that Christ or His disciples were evil to introduce such an unclear teaching as to their Gospel message - and that John of Revelations was insane because he was caught in the crossfire, and that Revelations be disregarded as a book of The Holy Bible. such ditch a thousand rules/canons, and make an official statement so as it sits in favour with world - considering many would not be part of a Church that has such a history of change from Pope to Pope, but that it was necessary for the particular eras as supreme ruler or whatever under God. watering down or adding to its original state & motive, which these Popes did & are not rellivant to today. miracles like mary blood tears (except little old ladies) don't work anymore either. & peopel won't be Catholic & regular church attendance, to hear boring stories of the past when their is no creation or message about the future - a focus, a vision.

Marc Halo.

thee above was Marc Halo

QUOTE WILLIAM J. BYRON: "....typically grounded in skepticism and an unwillingness to accept the compatibility of faith and reason."

The "compatibility" of faith & reason in *itself* comes down to a matter of skepticism & faith lol -a totally HEALTHY balance, than just believing
anything!
One must have an open, yet logical, mind, and personal experience in a field (especially the supernatural) before confirming to oneself, - which is the danger you have already now done to yourself, your VERY SOUL, sir, your OWN inner TEMPLE!!, to take the resurection of Christ as *fact*. I'm not meaning to be cruel, any one of us at times can slip offguard into this reasoning of just excepting anything because you "love God" or anything. - It's your polluted un-disconnected nature you've grown accustomed to that makes you so stubbornly sure that faith & reason go together, when really they are quite opposites.. and equals why you have just accepted to yourself that He was risen, when none of us really knows. It's what we've been told.

I figure you're one of those who just believe anything if it's to do with your faith &/or religion. That's how Christianity & a lot of religions trap people & provide a following to the same old same old deception that has been placed over humanity. That's why it must all go. It diseases the minds of godbodies / humankind. It halts the progress of the world. It is ungodly.

In the end, who should care if Jesus was actually raised from the dead or not? Or if his ressurected body was one or the other - flesh or just substance thats transparent (spelling?).
It's too far from the actual time to really piece it together, without it being guesses or downright deception/lies.

Barfa:

I hardly need to add to this discussion. In many ways the church has been, and to some extent still is an instrument of oppression, selling an insurance policy - paradise after death, or eternity burning in hell, depending on whether you toe their line. In any other venue, it would be shut down as a scam. Stories from thousands of years ago, a time of universal ignorance and superstition just don't cut it.

Certainly there are some good teachings in the church, but their history, is one of horror. The most recent ones are not just the sexual abuse, but the criminal conspiracy to hide it for decades. Also, the church's attempt to rule our nation - e.g. stem cell issue - think of what Altsheimers does to someone - they fall deeper and deeper into memory loss, confusion, and ultimately may spend several years as a vegetable before mercifully they die, either naturally or from removal of the feeding tube. Tell me that those victims lives are less valuable then a clump of cells that can't have the least shred of awareness, and most likely are the excess fertilizations resulting from helping people who can't have children have them. Normally the excess fertilized eggs will be washed down the drain. Stem cell research may well bring a cure for this terrible disease that can strike in ones 60's, and hits 50% of all over 85.

Add to this the churches irrational attitude about gays, which poisons our society. Surely the church must understand that their attitudes directly lead to some of their followers to perpetuate terrible discrimination against those people, and sometimes becomes a license for violence and murder in the mind of blinded, brainwashed followers. On the other hand, most of Western Europe, and New Zealand has either gay marriage, Civil unions which are about equivalent to marriage, or e.g France, Switzerland, Germany, partial civil unions. Canada, Spain, Republic of South Africa have Gay marriage and Israel recognizes gay marriage done elsewhere because the Orthodox Jews control marriage and won't perform the ceremony.
Then we have the Mexican state of , and Mexico city (it is like a state), and Argentina which have civil Unions. No wonder the church is alarmed, and the pope calls gay marriage non-negotiable. Once America starts treating LGBT people with the respect and equality they deserve, the church either has to change, and hence invalidate its absolute beliefs, or see more and more of its adherents becoming more questioning, and that is what the world, and America need.

As someone told me, the Chrutch (that is really what it is) with the the current pope has slammed the door on the twenty first century. A priest said to me on a blog that it is the other way around, the twenty first century has slammed its doors on the church. Thank you Mr. Priest. Yes there is hope for society.

And btw, most Catholics I know view the church as somewhere between cafeteria plan and something no longer needed. In fact, the real issue seems to be right wing evangelical Christianity, but there is hope there, for others are trying to take the evangelical movement in the opposite direction.

Posted March 22, 2007 5:16 PM

I hardly need to add to this discussion. In many ways the church has been, and to some extent still is an instrument of oppression, selling an insurance policy - paradise after death, or eternity burning in hell, depending on whether you toe their line. In any other venue, it would be shut down as a scam. Stories from thousands of years ago, a time of universal ignorance and superstition just don't cut it.

Certainly there are some good teachings in the church, but their history, is one of horror. The most recent ones are not just the sexual abuse, but the criminal conspiracy to hide it for decades. Also, the church's attempt to rule our nation - e.g. stem cell issue - think of what Altsheimers does to someone - they fall deeper and deeper into memory loss, confusion, and ultimately may spend several years as a vegetable before mercifully they die, either naturally or from removal of the feeding tube. Tell me that those victims lives are less valuable then a clump of cells that can't have the least shred of awareness, and most likely are the excess fertilizations resulting from helping people who can't have children have them. Normally the excess fertilized eggs will be washed down the drain. Stem cell research may well bring a cure for this terrible disease that can strike in ones 60's, and hits 50% of all over 85.

Add to this the churches irrational attitude about gays, which poisons our society. Surely the church must understand that their attitudes directly lead to some of their followers to perpetuate terrible discrimination against those people, and sometimes becomes a license for violence and murder in the mind of blinded, brainwashed followers. On the other hand, most of Western Europe, and New Zealand has either gay marriage, Civil unions which are about equivalent to marriage, or e.g France, Switzerland, Germany, partial civil unions. Canada, Spain, Republic of South Africa have Gay marriage and Israel recognizes gay marriage done elsewhere because the Orthodox Jews control marriage and won't perform the ceremony.
Then we have the Mexican state of , and Mexico city (it is like a state), and Argentina which have civil Unions. No wonder the church is alarmed, and the pope calls gay marriage non-negotiable. Once America

As someone told me, the Chrutch (that is really what it is) with the the current pope has slammed the door on the twenty first century. A priest said to me on a blog that it is the other way around, the twenty first century has slammed its doors on the church. Thank you Mr. Priest. Yes there is hope for society.

And btw, most Catholics I know view the church as somewhere between cafeteria plan and something no longer needed. In fact, the real issue seems to be right wing evangelical Christianity, but there is hope there, for others are trying to take the evangelical movement in the opposite direction.

Hi, Jim,

Yes, what I'm trying to get across is not obvious, and that's why I recommend reading Plato. It really takes a genius of his caliber to get it across rather easily. Sorry about that.

Thanks for the compliments, but I'm really not sweet and gentle. (Isn't the internet wonderful -- it leaves out so much of face-to-face conversation that it makes even me look nice :-)

Ann O.

to Ann O:

I am sure you are sincere and you appear to be a very gentle and sweet person, but I can't understand what you are trying to convey. It is too mystical for me.

Hi, Candide,

You say there aren't any great Catholic novelists these days. I agree. But so far as I can tell there aren't *any* great novelists these days. Maybe the novel form is done.

As for Catholic philosophers, perhaps you've not hear of Alisdair MacIntyre (of "After Virtue" fame, or Charles Taylor.

As to Graham Greene, others interpret him as you do, others don't. One recent work (yes, they're still writing books about him) thinks the differences in his thinking are better characterized as pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Many thinking Catholics changed a lot after that event. And you don't even mention the scripts he wrote for the movies, movies that are still regarded as classics.

You left out of your list the American woman, Flannery O'Connor, as great a short-story writer as you'll ever find.

Ann O.

"Other superior types like myself..."

HA!

Really, your parents need to move the computer into the living room!

Beware of Jesuits bearing gifts.

By the time of his death Graham Greene had pretty much abandoned Catholic theology and practice. It had served its purpose earlier in his life. As death approaches some are led to religion out of fear. Other superior types like myself abjure all religion as unworthy of a rational man/woman.

All the so-called great Catholic novelists have been put on the dungheap of history and remaindered books: Graham Greene, Francois Mauriac, Georges Bernanos.

There isn't a single philosophical thinker today who is Catholic. Or for that matter Christian.

Folks it is over. the 1700 more or less year domination of the human mind by Christianity is over. Christianity will survive among ignorant blacks, deprived rednecks, Africans, and other misfits. As is just, since it started among just such people in the Roman empire.

JIM tells us: I am sorry, dear Ann, but your discourse about things that cannot be70 detected or measure sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

Hi, Jim,

Spiritual things can be detected, but not by seeing, hearing, etc., or by their assistants, the scientific instruments. You can't see a gift of grace anymore that you can hear a color.

I should hasten to add that not all spiritual realities are *religious*, that is, they aren't all about God. They are simply non-material. They include acts of choice (even evil ones), concepts and logical laws and other abstractions. For instance, you cannot possibly see, hear, touch, taste or smell what you *know* when you think of "if p, then, q, and p, therefore q". Those are non-sensory relationships. Even the simple, "either . . . or . . ." can't be imagined. The content is totally non-material.

This theory (based on experience) goes all the way back to Plato, who was very much into math. It seems that math was what started him on his search for other spiritual realities. He ended up a great mytic. At least it seems that the wonderful mystical experience he describes in "The Symposium" was his own. I recommend that dialogue *most* highly as an introduction to mystical experience.

There are many, many routes to religious spiritual experience. These days many people seem to find the spiritual dimension through various meditative practices. One that's popular right nowo among Catholics is Centering Prayer. It doesn't involve any images or words or dogmas. It's a bit like some Zen practices. It's totally non-denominational. Just Google "Centering Prayer home page". (If I Google it, I'll lose what I've written here. Sigh. Wonder why that happens.) It assumes that you have some sort of belief in some sort of Great Whatever. But it doesn't have to be any more definite than that.

I think the key to *noticing* non-material realitites is to recognize that you're just looking for something which is a non-color, a non-chape, non-sound, non- all the other sensory qualities. Plato is awfully good in making us notice them. No wonder he has had such a huge influence on Christian theology.

Ann O.

MARY CUNNINGHAM tells us: Seamus Heaney (an Irishman and the greatest living poet now writing in English) once said that philosophy and science were on one side of a divide and music, poetry and religion of the other. Oh! there's a lot of reason in Catholicism, yes, but as you can see from many of the posts here what really draws Catholics to church (and The Church)is a sublime Christ-centred universe, experienced through the sacraments, the liturgy (and now we have a daily Latin Mass), the music, the art, the body of the faithful itself..

ANN O. responds: Yes, I think that one can't overemphasize the role of the sacraments in the Church -- once someone has found the Church. But I think there are many different sorts of reasons that people are attracted to it, or, for cradle Catholics, reasons for staying in it. For some it is the the dogmas which make sense of life, for others it is the beauty of the rituals and the art, for some it is intellectual conviction, for some it is a result of having known a saint, for some (not very many) it is the mystical dimension, for some it is the whole world-view that "makes sense" of human experience.

Once in the Church I suspect that what keeps us in it in spite of all its fault, even the terrible faults of some of us, is the unfailing presence of the grace we need to do the hard things that need doing, grace which is so clearly available in the sacraments. Indeed, there is grace for those outside the Church, and there are those outside who are much, much better people than most o Catholics are. But it's the sacraments that are our anchor, and I don't think you find such fulness of sacramental life elsewhere.

Ann O.

MARY CUNNINGHAM tells us: We were discussing "The Power and the Glory", one of Greene's most Catholic novels. Greene had converted to Catholicism when he was still at Oxford and one of the posters--an educated woman, a lawyer--wrote "Why on earth would an intelligent man like Greene do something stupid like converting to Catholicism?" She really couldn't fathom it at all.

Hi, Mary,

I can easily understand someone like that. Though my family is Catholic, a number of my close relatives are scientists, including my mother, a science major. She had such respect for her atheist physics teacher that she named me after her :-) So given my background, I think I have a rather unusual perspective. I'm sure that if I had been brought up in the sort of rationalist tradition that limits its vision to only physical things I certainly would find Greene's action utterly incomprehensible. Unless one has evidence of spiritual realities, why should one take such Christian/Catholic talk seriously? I'm with Dawkins there. But where I disagree with him is in finding evidence of the spiritual dimension.

Ann O.

Hatred of the Catholic Church may be the beginning of wisdom. But I would go further: hated of Christianity -- any version thereof -- is a sign of mental health.

Christianity is a serious mental disorder.

The venom against Catholics on these threads is equaled only by the venom against atheists, Jews, Muslims and gays on this and previous threads. Some of it is reasoned, but some of it is the result of profound anger on all sides. I admit to being angry myself.

Where is this anger coming from? Some of it is ancient history, some of it is modern politics, and a lot of it is the reaction to any claim for Absolute Truth, pretty much wherever they come from. In academic circles that kind of claim makes you a pariah. In academia, ideas are meant to be challenged. Religious fundamentalists cannot fathom why others do not accept their claims of Absolute Truth or their Holy Texts, and write off dissenters as immoral subhumans possessed by Satan, or as objects of pity or disgust.

These viewpoints are incommensurable, and have been for 2000 years.

If you're a Catholic, blame your bad conscience on discrimination, not on your stupid church and crazy religion.

Views of Catholics amongst the intellectual class...My NY Times incident..

Like I said earlier my time in academia was free of any religious harassment & it was at the LSE, a very secular organization. When I did my postgrad a large number of central European Jews (Karl Popper the most luminous but there were many others) that had refugeed to London were still at the school and these men were incredibly compassionate...I would say they set the tone.

Anyway, re the Times, last year I joined one of the book discussions and we were talking about Graham Greene. We were discussing "The Power and the Glory", one of Greene's most Catholic novels. Greene had converted to Catholicism when he was still at Oxford and one of the posters--an educated woman, a lawyer--wrote "Why on earth would an intelligent man like Greene do something stupid like converting to Catholicism?" She really couldn't fathom it at all. The moderator cut her off and said *he himself* had converted to CAtholicism--he hadn't, he was Jewish--as well & not to make statements like that. But she really was bewildered by Greene's actions, and her confusion remained with her along with the normal garden variety of anti-Catholic prejudices.

That was quite an encounter. However, I must say some of the rants here are a lot worse!

I encourage people to peruse the reponses to religious articles. It is scary to see the names, taunts, and many assumptions people have for Christians. They are equated to terrorists & murderers, and are often believed to be completely ignorant, and NOT WORTHY of having an opinion/voice. In the past few years I've seen a large increase of these sentiments. All of the people who hold these views, including those who do not share them on an internet site, are out there, and there are many people listening. I've had people clearly and boldly assert that Christians cannot reason, are hateful, and are the cause of most of the worlds troubles without knowing anything substantial about their religion or history. And it has been mostly in pseudo-intellectual atmospheres. I say pseudo-intellectual because people are not acting truly intellectually honest or impartial, despite their standing in academia. Each person wants to seem intellectual and many mistakingly assume that intellecutal means anti-religious. This IS gaining large momentum in the academic/intellecual world. The ramifications of this behavior in an atmosphere of higher learning are enormous; people absorb this bigoted thinking as they learn, and it transforms our society into a hateful one. Its very pervasive; I have had teachers who openly have double standards, and mock Christians. It is not uncommon. Friends have had undergrad and graduate classes where they were afraid to let their religion be known, and where their God was made fun of. We should learn how to consider a point-of-view humbly, and how to properly disagree, without dehumanizing the other person or group and considering new facts as they arise. In the NY Times, one reader wrote that Christians shouldn't be allowed to practice science, and some were sympathetic to his opinion. I had a homosexual teacher who I complained to once about people being unfair and he indicated that it is good that Christians are discriminated against; finally its their turn. Some people may horbor a personal vendetta against the religion, whether fact-based or not, and undermine it when they can. Lately, some confuse political parties with religious groups, therefore when they oppose a party and attack it they will blindly oppose and attack a religion too. Lastly, there is a pervasive ignorance about the Bible and the ignorance of the enormous positive Christian influence in history. People make assumptions based on the non-factual claims of others. This is the scarist aspect to me is the level of ignorance and the mob-mentality that follows. I see people largely defining Cristians as always ...(insert ignorance here) and they will not examine or ask a Pastor for themselves. They are like people who say Jewish people are always gready for money, or foreigners always stink, or Afician-Americains are stupid, etc.. The ignorance of the Bible and of what Christians believe, with the hate-filled comments increasingly spewed towards them is completely chilling.

The only time that I thought that I was discriminated against was at a very young age in my hometown that will remain anonymous. What bothered me is that I was very open to making friends with everyone at 7 years old. I made what I thought was a good friendship with a Jewish girl, at that time it was I guess brave to do this . Nonetheless, I did, her name was Susan, I really liked her she was very smart and we got along just fine, till her parents had to interfere with our friendship. They found out that I was catholic and discouraged our friendship altogether, I did not think it was their place to interfere with our friendship, Sue and I. This devastated my belief that the world is a friendly place. I felt almost like I was discriminated because I was catholic the family did not accept me and the friendship was terminated. I went on in life with something in my past that I found hard to accept and have gone on with the idea that to make friends with people of different faiths was a highly frowned upon here in the United States. You certainly can understand that I still am confused and do not think that Jewish people are any better than catholics are, after all we all believe in the same god, I hope!

Ann O, bias is a constant quantity, (quality) added to changing quantities. Where there is racial bias for example, the word "black" triggers bias. If it's something bad the "black" person did then it's "worse" than if a white person did exactly the same thing. If good, then not as good.

Bias can be positive and very often is. "There's a person at my "church" you should call. He/she can do that job for you. The implication is that since the person comes from "church" he/she does a good job at a reasonable price and doesn't cheat.

I have had a couple of experiences with "church" recommended tradesmen and all have been bad. As a result I am now PREDJUDICE against all recommended by church goers. In other words, my personal experiences have been so bad that I now discriminate against tradesmen that go to church. That means I'm "biased" adding a negative quantity to church recommended help.

If I am told, "I know someone who does that kind of work" I don't add the negative bias but still bias it by my opinion of the one recommending. Bias is impossible to avoid. It's probably impossible to ever get me to even try a church recommended person and thus remove the negative bias.

Conclusion: everyone is biased. You do take the "source" into consideration don't you?

Haven,

I spent a *lot* of years in academia, but maybe because I was doing Dev. Econ., where we really were concerned with alleviating the plight of the worst off, maybe because the dept was dominated by Dr (later Lord) Peter Bauer, one of the most humane men I have ever met & one who would *never* scoff at the religious beliefs of anyone, much less the peasantry, I never experienced any academic disdain for the religious. Maybe it's different now.

In any case, why should there be any conflict between reason and religion? Is there conflict between reason and music? Seamus Heaney (an Irishman and the greatest living poet now writing in English) once said that philosophy and science were on one side of a divide and music, poetry and religion of the other. Oh! there's a lot of reason in Catholicism, yes, but as you can see from many of the posts here what really draws Catholics to church (and The Church)is a sublime Christ-centred universe, experienced through the sacraments, the liturgy (and now we have a daily Latin Mass), the music, the art, the body of the faithful itself..

I live in London and my little parish in the East Ends draws faithful from throughout Europe, Africa and North America. All colours, all ages, all classes, but we are one in Christ. I hope that you have a similar experience in your worship.

Regards,

Mary Cunningham
London

Baal..

Well, I hope you’re more careful with your science than with your dialectic.

Look, it’s always a lot easier to make up what your adversary has said and then attack it—it’s called a straw man—than to thoughtfully engage her. Easy, yes, but it doesn’t lend to much enlightenment, and that is what you profess to be, isn’t it, an enlightened man?

And to deliberately misquote when the very article was still extant! Well, that takes real nerve. But I will rebut the worst of your charges as follows.

OK let’s start: you’ve constructed a straw man saying I said Jews started the Iraq war! But the dispute with Chuck was with his classifying all Catholics who stilled belonged to the Church as “evil” due to the paedophile scandal. I used an *analogy * beginning with “Let’s reframe.” Followed by “Suppose.” The following are defined as:

Analogy: “a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand.”

Frame: “the general background or context against or within which something takes place.” “Reframe” is a term used in psychology meaning to substitute one historical background for another.

Suppose: “to imagine as possible”

I think you will see from the above that it was a hypothetical example. Yet you * deliberately * , oh very deliberately, chose to read the analogy as the gospel truth. And then attacked it! Tacky, Ba’al, very tacky.

I finished with the paragraph by saying to blame the majority for the crimes of the few was a * bad* thing and that I would not do it, but that Chuck was doing it to Catholics. My focus Ba’al was demonized Catholics, not demonized Jews. Again more of your rhetorical tricks muddying what was a fairly tightly constructed paragraph..

Let’s see what else: you are insulted that I found an echo of Northern Ireland in the worst of the anti-Catholic diatribes here. Tell me, have you ever been to Northern Ireland? Have you ever heard the Rev. Dr Ian Paisley? If so, when? What did he say? You can't just attack, Ba'al, you have to back up the attack with facts, well, a *few* would be nice.

Look, you’re a scientist who holds yourself in no small esteem. I suggest that you are offended to hear your prejudices—for that is what they are—belittled in such a fashion. There have been other posters who also objected to the likes of yourself, Candide & the rest. Maybe you all just to be able to continue to indulge your little anti-Catholic follies & foibles, as a (self) important members of the privilegentsia defending their privileges.

And that’s where we all came in, didn’t we? Fr Byron, in your words “The Priest”, writing about anti-Catholicism amongst the intellectuals. Catholics tend to agree with him. Intellectuals saying....a lot of things, a few germane. And using a lot of rhetorical tricks.

I think the real reason why religious representatives receive a somewhat cold shoulder in academic circles has less to do with prejudice than the basic purposes of religion and science. When all is said and done, one has to look at the reasons why these fields of study exist. Call it over simplifying things if you will, but as it stands, philosophy represents man's essential question: what is this and why is it here? Science and religion are two schools of thought that attempt to answer that question. However, the difference is that science objectively tries to find the answer, and those answers simply state what it is and why it is there. Those answers, in turn, are open to debate. Religion, on the other hand, tries to dictate not only what it is, but also what it should be, and there is no room for debate, as the matter has supposedly already been settled by God. Perhaps if the priests, rabbis, and ministers of this world were a little more open minded themselves, then perhaps the scientific and academic communities might also warm up to the Gospel a little more. I say this as a man who is earnestly searching to find the balance between both, who believes in God and yet still embraces logic and scientific reason.

Ann O

Discrimination is a good thing. To me it means making a rational judgement. Bias is more neutral to me. I confess to being biased against mosquitos. Prejudice is more negative. But we all have out prejudices based on many things, experience, authority, revelation, or tradition. By experience, I am prejudiced against beets.

I am sorry, dear Ann, but your discourse about things that cannot be70 detected or measure sounds like mumbo-jumbo. We have learned much about our physical world and have a very long way to go. But tell me, is disease caused by sin or by germs. Believe me, I would love a heaven where we would rejoin all our loved ones. I don't know that I would enjoy playing a harp for eternity. While I don't entirely reject a heaven, I must be skeptical due to lack of evidence. I am 70 and the ultimate answer is not far away. As I have previously indicated, I have no problems with resonable faith, but I do not want someone else's faith imposed upon me, especially when it comes from the Islamic, Christian, or Jewish taliban, who adore ignorance.

I just ran across this quote from Christopher Hitchens.

"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens]

So "discrimination" in the sense of "noting differences" really isn't the same thing as a "bias". As I understand the term "bias" it means a negative concept of others who are different from me which results in my having an advantage over the others. It's a pre-judgment which results in unfair consequences to others.

I'm sure there are other meanings. What are some of them?

Ann O.

Anne O

Some theologians argue that during the Eucharist the bread literally becomes the body of Christ. Literally, not metaphorically. This is one example of where theology impinges on the physical world in a way that is amenable to objective testing. Others argue that morality can only emerge through faith, which is something that social scientists can also measure. And of course, many religions have miracle stories that have a physical or biological manifestation. Of course, a dualist approach to the mind-body problem is inherent in a lot of theology. So sometimes, more than you might think, we do talk about the same things.

Since the time of Paul, entire waves of Christian theology have regarded science as a dangerous approach to knowledge because of its potential to diminish faith. Paul said "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" and he condemned the "empty logic of the philosophers". He was referring to people like Aristotle, who advocated a provisional approach to all knowledge.

Some of us have had enough and have decided to fight back.

OOPS I said: In other words, as a scientist he knows, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

I should have said: In other words, insofar as he is a scientist he doesn't know, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

Ann O: "What theologians talk about are largely the interior, private events which neither human external senses (sight, hearing, etc.) nor their extensions (scientific instruments) can detect."

You mean things like the Holy Spirit? Or the virgin birth, or the bodily ressurection of Jesus? Internal events? Life after death? I think you're confusing theologians with psychologists and neuroscientists. Read theology.

JIM tells us:

Richard Dawkins knows the scientific method very well. It is the best way known to home in on truth and it is self correcting.

Hi, Jim,

Oh? Scientific method refers to a program of finding new scientific -- physical truths (or probabilitites). Scientists such as Dawkins who limit the object of science to physical events are not talking about the same sorts of things that theologians talk about, though they do both talk about gross objects like the sun, trees, wine, etc. The nature of those common realities are not at issue.

What theologians talk about are largely the interior, private events which neither human external senses (sight, hearing, etc.) nor their extensions (scientific instruments) can detect. The theologians have developed their own vocabularies for speaking about such events. Dawkins give no indication that he understands the meanings of those words.

In other words, as a scientist he knows, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

Yes, he can take the position that there are only physical events. The counter-evidence to this claim is ultimately personal and private, and as such beyond the reach of scientific method.

JIM: When applied to religion, the method shows that most of religion is wishful thinking and/or mumbo jumbo.

Ann O.: Precisely how does the scientific method reach these conclusions? (Except by denying that non-physical events occur.)

None of this is to say that theologians do not use logic. Most of them assuredly do, though it is true that some of them don't care about inconsistencies. But the latter are not the ones I would recommend :-)

You might tell me that because theology includes contradictions it should for that reason be abandoned. I would counter that at the moment Einstein and quantum theory are contradictory. But I would not abandon either one.

Always, in both disciplines, the problem is to find better explanations.

Ann O.

Well, since so much has been posted about Galileo, I thought I'd interject a little experience I had when I visited the Vatican museum some years ago. First off, they have one of the largest art collections in the world and in the entire place, there is but ONE painting of Galileo enticing the Bishops to look through the telescope at the evidence against the Aristotelian view of the universe. The painting is perhaps 10" x 12" -- it's tiny in comparison to all others. But what is really hysterical is that all the paintings are numbered so you can listen to an explanation of it with your audiotape. Well, this particular one of Galileo is numbered 666. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Richard Dawkins knows the scientific method very well. It is the best way known to home in on truth and it is self correcting. When applied to religion, the method shows that most of religion is wishful thinking and/or mumbo jumbo. Thomas Jefferson believed that within a few generations, most American would be Unitarians. In a better world, religion would be regarded as some form of astrology, a mild, mostly harmless, private diversion.

Ann O.,

Thanks for the input about the neurotheologians. I realize that this is a very new sub-discipline. But they need to realize that they are (apparently) making generalizations about only *one kind* of mystic. That they would do so also indicates to me that they haven't read enough of the classical mystical writings (itself a humongously large field, going all the way back to the Rig Vedas) to even speak a common language with the mystical theologians.

Which brings me back to Dawkins. He talks about theology (as some neurotheologians talk about "mysticism") when he really doesn't know enough to speak authoritatively about the subject.

I suggest to you that until scientists understand the theologians own questions (which are usually closely related to philosophical ones) that they will not understand theological answers. It is partly a matter of the necessity of speaking the same language, and when I say "the same language" I mean using physical symbols and assigning them the same meanings. But that's another problem. Triple sigh.

Ann O.

Last post is mine.

Anne O

I have followed those lines of work only a little bit. All I can say is that over time there will be more of a consensus as more people carry out studies using different methods that include more classes of mystical experience, and then subject these ideas to critique and peer review. There has not been much peer review so far.

I went and did a literature search for the two authors that you mentioned (who I had not heard of before). I found only two articles in the refereed scientific literature on the subject, (although it is clear that Dr. Newberg has published a number of brain imaging studies in other contexts). One study was carried out on Tibetan buddhists and one on Franciscan nuns. Both were done on a very limited number of subjects. Their conclusion is that there are changes in brain function during intense prayer and meditation (but there would be something detectable with any intense mental activity -- so what); and that this kind of phenomenon can be studied scientifically; and they pointed out a number of methodological issues that would have to be addressed to do it right. That is as far as they went in the primary literature.

But, then these guys went on to write an entire book, which I have not seen, but which is not subjected to peer review. Anyway, if they are on the right track, we will know eventually (actually one of the two authors died recently).

Yes Catholics face discrimination. We secular types won't let them burn heretics, persecute Jews, enslave women, and molest children.

But we don't stop them sending dollars to IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland.

We're fair.

BA'AL tells us: The Priest obviously does not know the meaning of the word discrimination.

ANN O.: Oh, come on, B. "discrimination" has many meanings.

I cheerfully grant you that no theological position should be immune from criticism. No doubt I think that becasue I'm a scholastic of sorts.

The so-called "scholastic method" of the medieval universities *required* that the theologians (1) first present the views opposed to their own, (2) present their own, and then (3) criticize each of the opponents individually. No ducking. That was the theological method of the medieval universities. I fear that many academics these days do not measure up, and that includes many at both Catholic and non-Catholic universities. Sigh, again.

Ann O.

BA'AL tells us: You also wrote "There are among the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science." I am a neuroscientist, and I wonder who or what you are talking about. I am unaware of a trend in our science to accept anything based on intuition, whether it is self-contradictory or not. Perhaps if you are more specific I can help clear that up. I am wondering if maybe you are talking about recent results on consciousness, in which people's conscious awareness that they have decided to do something occurs significantly after the cortical neurons that initiate the motor pattern are already activated.

Hi again, Ba'al,

I'm talking aout Eugene d"Aquila and Andrew B. Newberg in their "The Mystical Mind". It's a fascinating book, and I admire them greatly for their open minds and their attempting to find some common ground between science and religious experience. But I fear that they, like most students of mystical literature, accept Rudolph Otto's theory of mystical experience, a theory which claims that *all* so-called "mystical" experiences are essentially the same sort of experience and that all religions are founded on the same intuition.

But another great scholar of mystical experience, Robert C. Zaehner of Oxford, in his magnum opus "Mysticism: Sacred and Profane" presents texts from mystics from many different cultures at many different times, from the Rig Vedas to Martin Buber, from Ramanuja to Ghazzali, from Ruysbroeck to Proust and Rimbaud, and many, many more, and he finds three essentially different sorts of experience called "mystical", and they differ widely. True, all these experiences are indeed alike in being gloriously joyful experiences of some absolute unity or union, and all of them are so vastly unlike ordinary experiences that they are most difficult to describe.

So what are some of the differences? In one, the focus of the mystic's attention turns inward into the depths of the self away from the physical world, and finds a reality so beautiful that many of these mystics mistake themselves for God, though others do not claim to be God. Often they claim to be "beyond good and evil". The experience can be produced by spiritual exercises.

In a second type, the mystic also goes inward and does meet God in some ineffable way. This is described as a free gift of God and is quite rare.

In a third type - which Zahner calls "panenhenic" mysticism -- the mystic's consciousness goes outward, and he experiences himself as both *part* of the whole of the cosmos and *the whole* of the cosmos. Zaehner says that this is basically the same sort of thinking that is found in many schizophrenics. Many of these mystics call this reality "God", though not all of them do. Zaehner himself had such an experience when he was an agnostic and he says it never occurred to him to think he was God.

As best I can tell from my reading, this third sort of experience is the *only* sort of mystical experience that the neurotheologians study. And some of them accept this intuition as somehow grasping something which is *real*, a reality whose ontological status they do not question. Consider this text from Aquila and Newberg:

"Neurotheology has shown that the products of the mystical mind are real, at least as neurophychological states. But the phenomenologyical analysis, which we have been forced to employ as a completment to our basic neuroevolutionary and neurophysiological approach, has powerfully demonstrated that hyperlucid states of consciousness and other prducts of the mystical mind must be understood as either more real or as real as baseline reality when recalled from baseline reality [i.e., from ordinary states of consciousness]."

In other words, they buy this the-part-is-the-whole-and-the-whole-is-the-part nonsense.

This work was written, I believe, before a recent discovery I read about. Apparently some neuroscientists have discovered a particular part of the brain which allows us to discriminate between our own body and the bodies in the external world. When this part of the brain does not function properly or does not function at all, then the mystic experiences himself as part of the cosmos and as the whole of the cosmos. And some neuroscientists (I don't remember where I read thi -- I don't think it was a primary source) are willing to accept that intuition as a grasp of reality.

My point is that as soon as a scientist accepts such contradictory thinking as a revelation of some reality, that is the death of at least his part of the scientific project. It is one thing to admit that one holds contradictory ideas (as the physicists do about Einstein and quantum theory and as theologians do about many issues). It is quite a different thing to hold that there is no problem, that it's OK science or theology. It isn't. Not in the classic meaning of the word if "science".

I should add that Zaehner has been quite a controversial scholar, and, truth be told, his later works are not always consistent with his earlier ones. It is also true that he is constantly misrepresented. So, if you're interested in his theory, read the primary sources. Never trust his opponents to get him right. Sigh. If you do read him, I promise you that you'll be way ahead of all the "neurotheologians". Their object of study is just much, much too narrow. But do keep an open mind about that third category of mystical experience. As a scientist, you need an open mind :-)

Ann O.

My empathy is for all fellow believers whose faiths and beliefs are manipulated in such ways by those seeking to harness faiths and beliefs for their own causes and interests. That includes members of the clerics. Some are the worst offenders of discrimination and bigotry for institutionalizing and perpetuating them as faith and beliefs. Shame on them to be talking and complaining about personal discriminations against them.

What prejudice did Reverend Byron experience?
Was he denied service in a restaurant?
Was he denied the opportuniy to apply for employment? Was his application ignored?
Was he beaten by thugs who called him a dirty Catholic?
Was he repeatedly told that he would not amount to any thing because he was a Catholic?
In Ontario, Canada, the Loyal Orange Order held some sway in Toronto until the 1950s. The city's police force was predominately Protestant. In Toronto and some rural areas of the province, an older generation of municipal leaders still practiced blatant anti-Catholic discrimination when hiring municipal employees. As a young Catholic, I was curious about the old Protesant Orange Order hall that had become a ruin in the small town near Toronto where I grew up. From 1952 to 1959, Protestants from nearby Churuches knocked on our door for permision to pick Orange Lillies for the Orange Day parade. At the time, the organization was losing its influence due to the population shift of farmers - order members - to the towns and cities. The local Orange Order leader was an insurance salesman who sat on the town council. Interestingly, an increasing number of his customers were Catholic immigrants from Europe. When I think of him, I remember he was a polite little man who smiled a lot and spoke very softly. But, he probably used his influence on the council to aid in the hiring of his Branch's loyal Protestant members. As far as I know, he was the last local leader of the Order to be elected to the town council.
The above is a short history of anti-Catholic discrimination in small town Ontario. Perhaps, Reverend Byron should give the details and circumstances of the anti-Catholic discrimination of which he complains. The former President of a University should enlighten us so that empathetic Christians, non-Christines, Jews, Muslims, atheists and others can rally to his cause. In other words, protesting against social discrimintion is not to be undertaken on a whim since so many members of humanity experience violent discriminatory mistreatment.
I believe that Reverend Byron believes that he suffered discrimination. But if Reverend Byron's grievance was and is a slight one, he should have reacted swiftly, challenging the offending "professors." If he had done so, he probably would have discovered the origin of his own discomfort. He would have had the opportunity to address the real or perceived "prejudice."
It will be possible to discuss Father Byron's comlaint in a serious manner when he devulges the circumstances of the "discriminatory" acts. He must rise to the occasion and reveal his outrage. Failure to do so, will be telling.

Anne O

The guy who wrote the book about Tao and physics is not a scientist, his books are very dated and nobody in the business ever took them seriously.

You also wrote "There are among the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science." I am a neuroscientist, and I wonder who or what you are talking about. I am unaware of a trend in our science to accept anything based on intuition, whether it is self-contradictory or not. Perhaps if you are more specific I can help clear that up. I am wondering if maybe you are talking about recent results on consciousness, in which people's conscious awareness that they have decided to do something occurs significantly after the cortical neurons that initiate the motor pattern are already activated. It almost suggests that consciousness is a story we make up after the fact to provide a narrative for something that we decided to do earlier by some very different process that we do not see by introspection. Or perhaps you are thinking of some recent studies on human's perceptions of time.

Anyway, those conclusions are not based on intuitions, they are based on experiments, and they actually overturn the expectations of intuition. The fact that the results are counter-intuitive hardly the death of science, anymore than quantum mechanics, relativity, or superstrings.

BA'AL tells us: David Bohm did not reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics and never in his lifetime claimed to have done so. In fact, nobody has succeeded in doing this, but it is an area of very intense research.

Hi, Ba'al,

I seem to have misinterpreted what Robert Nozick says about Bohm in his work "Invariances". Says Nozick of the new physics,

"Such an overturning of our traditional concepts can be disquiteting and disconcerting. Peole go to great lengths to avoid this.
"An instance is David Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics, which has wonsome adherrents among philosophers but few among physicists. Bohm's theory is deterministic, particles have definite positions and trajectories, the wave function of the system refers to an existent entity that determines how the particles behave, there is no collapse of the wave function, and (as Bohn Bell has emphasizd) the theory does not require reference to an observer and it offers a homogeneous account of the physical world that is not bifurcated into a quantum part and a classical part. [I took this to mean that the Bohm's theory is a theory of the whole, a reconciliation of Einstein and quantum theory. Ann O.] However, according to Bohm's view 'the fundamental laws of the world are cooked up in such a way as to systematically *mislead* us about themselves. . . . [the theoryy]recounts the unfolding of a perverse and gigantic conspiracy to make the world *appear* to be *quantum mechanized*'." (p. 8 in Nozick.)

Scientists love of elegance wouldn't be so bad if they simply took the attitude that, well, sooner or later some smart guy will figure out a theory of everything that is both elegant and consistent. But I fear that some scientists (e.g. the author of the work about the Tao and the new physics) are more than a little willing to tolerate inconsistency. There areamong the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science.

Yes, there are theologians who almost revel in inconsistencies -- Kierkegaard for one. But most Catholic ones don't. The rationalists among them like Aquinas and Scotus and Ockham would have none of such nonsense. When there were inconsistencies to be found in theology they felt impelled to look for what was wrong. They weren't always successful, I grant you. But at least they were willing to see that the problems lay in themselves and not in the objects they study

I'll grant you very quickly that too many churchmen are unwilling to subject their premises to debate, even in the face of clear counter-evidence. But that is a fault of the churhmen, not of the whole Church.

Ann O.

To fast forward from Galileo to the near present. When I was stationed Mass in the early 60s, I could not buy condoms in the drugstores. Luckily, they were available at military bases. I seem to recall that such laws were overturned by the supreme court in Connecticut v. Griswold. A case of some church trying to force it views on everyone.

*sigh* Ok, let's try again. I suspect that Fred would have realized precisely what I was talking about. For everyone else, let me restate my question.

Fred, I agree that your faith should be allowed. It is, and should be legal. You should not be, and are not, physically rounded up and tossed to lions. In other words, your faith and beliefs should be tolerated in the sense that they should be permitted. You should have, and do have, the legal right and protection to practice them. My question to you is why should I, or anyone else, treat what you hold as sacred as sacred ourselves?

(For the word mincers: there is a difference between respecting the legal right to do XYZ and respecting XYZ.. complicated, I know. One would think that Christians, of all people, would understand the difference.)

Your beliefs Fred demand that you believe that any other 'path to god', for lack of a better phrase, is completely invalid and will result in a nasty end for those that choose paths other than yours. Explain why your beliefs should be respected (as opposed to your right to practice your beliefs being respected) when your belief doesn't offer the same respect to those that believe differently.

IN RE: GALILEO GALILEI & GIORDANO BRUNO:

The recitation above of the Catholic Church's defence of its treatment of these two men reminds me of its recent "apology" in March 2000 for "The Use of Force in the Service of Truth", meaning the tortures and burnings of those deemed heretics or suspected heretics.

What a way to characterize these horrors - they were done "in the service of truth." Unbelievable!

Why can't the Church ever just say it was wrong, horribly wrong?