the universe according to the Vatican

[jillybean74]

Apparently it's ok to believe there was a big bang, and that life might have evolved on other planets (even intelligent life). But not ok to believe humans evolved by natural selection?
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL146364620080514?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews

Comments

[jillybean74]

Perhaps it's not possible to find a quote where the pope actually says condoms don't work, but according to fairly numerous reports, there are a fair number of catholic officials saying, apparently, that condoms aren't really "safer" so people shouldn't use them, and that the AIDS virus is hundreds of times smaller than a sperm cell, etc. The argument goes that people should be abstinent or faithful to their partner instead of ever using a condom. That works fine, if both partners comply. When only one partner complies, the other one is left with AIDS.

What about the children of such marriages, who are not at fault in any way? They either end up with AIDS, end up orphans, or both. I hate the fact that catholic officials go around saying "condoms aren't good enough" and use that rationale to justify bad policy.

The idea that condom use promotes a promiscuous lifestyle is what I object to. Even if it did, it's about saving lives and reducing human misery. I have to see proof that the traditional catholic teachings reduce promiscuity in order to see any validity in that argument, whatsoever.

This, like all things, will change when the proponenets (who are old) die and are replaced by someone in the next generation. That's usually how big ideas are spread, including scientific theories like the big bang, etc. The old guard is replaced by new people who grew up with certain ideas. When the new guys take over, we will have some progress.

I recognize that good that the catholic church, and other religious institutions have done in the world. However, they are very very off the mark on this one.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[tblumens]

Excellent discussion, why was 'Bou's last comment deleted?
I side with her, I dislike the current Pope, and I admire the grassroots work - there's loads of it in Brazil, where most Catholics use contraception - when a religion is mainstream, most mainstream behaviours end up being reflected in it. Not many Brazilians are deeply religious, though, so people in general take what the Pope says with a pinch of salt.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[jillybean74]

I think it was Andrew that deleted his own comment

Yes, that was me

[andrew_the_oga]

Context doth make cowards of us all, or at least forces a tighter grip on English grammar than I apparently possess at 0600h.

Omelettes and broken eggs

[andrew_the_oga]

Even if it did, it's about saving lives and reducing human misery.

That's correct. But death and misery are seen by plenty of otherwise-reasonable people as perfectly acceptable outcomes for the "lifestyle choice" of promiscuity. In considering the example of the subSaharan trucker's wife and her life of spousal rape, these people usually just say helpful things about how she should just leave the bum anyway. Sigh.

the proponenets (who are old) die and are replaced by someone in the next generation

Remember that organizations promote people who fit the mould, and the Vatican has been successful by its very constancy. I talk to lots of people way younger than me whose views on, say, harm reduction programs, abortion, gay rights and human rights in general-- are far more conservative than my own. I'm not optimistic.

We need radical speech, if only because when you pull on the end of a continuum, you move the middle ever so slightly too. The very fact that "we should give condoms to people who need them" is perceived as a radical view in some circles means that more of us have to become advocates, rather than just being supporters.

Re: Omelettes and broken eggs

[jillybean74]

We need radical speech, if only because when you pull on the end of a continuum, you move the middle ever so slightly too.
Having just read Mistakes Were Made, but Not By Me, I am not sure about this. A radical point of view sometimes makes deep seated ideas become even more intrenched, because the human "dissonance reducing" mechanisms start to take over.. ie) I'm a compassionate and caring individual, how could I support an uncompassionate, misery-inducing idea? It must be a good idea! Yes, it's a fantastic idea! Look at all this evidence for it!

Then again, when you look at history, it's the radical movements that have gotten the population at large to start re-examining its biases and that has led to massive social change. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

I do think there are people within the catholic church right now who have different ideas about what should be what WRT Africa, but most of these people are at lower levels. You're right about the grooming process, for higher positions especially. But there is hope that once the changes in attitude reach critical mass, the top topples too. I could be deluding myself because I want to think that, but there really is evidence of change at a more grassroots level. Most actual catholics are more sensible than the elite, my in-laws included.

Why are your comments screened? I just went and friended you, maybe that will make the problem go away. I'm still a bit of a novice LJ user.

Biases

[andrew_the_oga]

Given all the biases that influence human motivation, you can easily make a case for both views. (Being a Libra, I'm powerless to do much else.)

Is Richard Dawkins right, when he says that religious moderates, by their very existence, aid and abet the acts of religious extremists? I know many otherwise-reasonable people who seem to be quite religious-- but people who behave well at the dinner table may behave differently when the last lifeboat's being launched. While this latter observation has little to do with confessional status per se, I think it's worth remembering.

Re: Biases

[jillybean74]

"Is Richard Dawkins right, when he says that religious moderates, by their very existence, aid and abet the acts of religious extremists?"

I haven't yet decided what I think about that proposition. I contemplate it fairly regularly, since I also know "otherwise reasonable" people (I find that a slightly funny choice of words, in a true way).

I keep coming back to this thread

[andrew_the_oga]

My buddy Vernon, who turns fifty this year and is possibly the toughest dude I've ever met, is a born-again evangelical baptist. He studied for the ministry (he has, as my mother would say, "more degrees than a thermometer") but decided not to pursue it, taking a job in mountain rescue instead. Now he's a nurse at UAH ER.

Vern liked to say that, "Although the leap of faith is an unreasonable leap, the faith that follows from it must be reasonable faith, subject to the same rules of logical thought as anything else we think about." And apparently that works for him. I think that most faithful people don't put such strictures on their beliefs; the fact that "I believe it from my faith," is an unfalsifiable "bulletproof" kind of proposition.

There's the parable of the two sages on the bridge. One says, "I wish I was a fish, because the fish are so happy." The other says, "Since you're not a fish, you can't know whether the fish are happy." The first replies, "Since you are not me, you can't know whether I can know if the fish are happy." That's bulletproof too, I guess.

Remember the t-shirts that said, "My God is Pro-Choice" and other things like that back when they were periodically jailing Henry Morgentaler? This was right around the time that my own atheism was hardening up. I'd rather suggest that you should "decide what you are and be that," and if you're opposed to God on an issue you think is vital, then be prepared to face him on judgment day, call him out over it, and be prepared to burn for all eternity. Anything less is, well, kind of philosophically limp. Convincing yourself that "god is on your side" just because you'd rather think the fish are happy is, well, for wussies. I don't think that many people who are religious but "not deeply so" just prefer not to give any real thought to what's implied by the brimstone-tossing god of the Old Testament. I don't think Christianity should be approached as a buffet, where one can take only those things that suit one's taste-- and I pick on the Christians only because it's the theology I grew up in, so I can discuss it with some knowledge. In principle, I feel the same way about everybody else.

I guess there's stuff you just can't argue.

Re: I keep coming back to this thread

[jillybean74]

Yes, I find that the average religious person tends to want the "feel good" aspect of god/religion, rather than having put very much thought into it. I can count a few friends who have put a lot of thought into it, though. That I can handle, even if I don't agree with their conclusions. At least an intelligent conversation can be had.

What really bugs me is people who say "Oh, I'm not really 'religious' but I'm 'very spiritual.'" Ok, well call me a moron but what the hell does it mean to be "spiritual"? Does it mean you believe in spirits? Some ultimate meaning/purpose to life? Or does it just mean you think life and nature is beauitful? Or maybe it means you think we are more than the sum of our parts. But what about the question of a higher power? How about Intelligent design? All of these are probably too specific for such people. I think that what they ultimately mean is "I can believe in whatever magic I want, and you can't challenge it."

Yup

[andrew_the_oga]

I can believe in whatever magic I want, and you can't challenge it.

I think it's this one.

I preached a sermon some years ago at the Unitarian Church, about, "Spiritual implications of sudden death and unexpected critical illness," and last year gave a talk at a conference on Spirituality in Healthcare, called, "A Playwright's Witness: Simulation Training as Preparation for Spiritual Crisis."

I know how I (rapid atheist that I am) use the word, but I agree with you that most people are just popping smoke and reversing track when they say, "Oh, I'm spiritual." Like Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "I pay words extra, so I can make them mean what I want."

[buhrger]

I preached a sermon some years ago at the Unitarian Church, about, "Spiritual implications of sudden death and unexpected critical illness," and last year gave a talk at a conference on Spirituality in Healthcare, called, "A Playwright's Witness: Simulation Training as Preparation for Spiritual Crisis."
i don't imagine copies would be available?