Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 11:39 AM

Exactly, Jack. We of the Religious Left (not only Christians) in the United States usually find atheists to be natural allies, and we have found ways to work together quite happily. Our natural enemies are the Religious Right, who self-righteously use their religion to support racism and nationalism and other forms of oppression.

Those on the right in the U.S. spend a lot effort and money "proving" that their religion is the right one. Back when God created the World Wide Web, the Catholic right-wingers bought up all the domain names that sounded Catholic, and they use those Websites to prove how right they are. Catholic.com is a Website called "Catholic Answers," and they have "apologists standing by 24 hours a day to answer your questions about the Catholic Faith." The answers they give are sometimes pretty weird. They claim to be representing the "true religion," but their religion is far different from what I learned in a Catholic seminary.

We on the religious left don't want to be bothered to prove or defend our faith. We see faith as a way of life, not a checklist of beliefs to be defended. We generally enjoy our religious practices, but don't see them as something to fight about. We're more interested in fighting for justice for the poor and the immigrants and others who suffer injustice.

So, we're bewildered by European atheists who find it so important to prove that our religious faith is wrong. We're in an age where fascism is gaining strength at an alarming rate, all over the world. Isn't it more important to join together in mutual respect and deal with the threat of fascism?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 18 - 11:45 AM

With you on that Joe.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 18 - 11:57 AM

"Isn't it more important to join together in mutual respect and deal with the threat of fascism?"
The church has trditionally supported the right - Franco - Pinochet - some of the worst of the worst
They ar built in parts of establishment contol
As far as I'm concerned, it's not religion that's the problem, it's how it is used to keep the imbalance in society
The Catholic church remains in the top league in that particular game
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:00 PM

One "christian" that springs to mind not a million miles fro here is at present appeasing the slaughter of demonstrators who are protesting to get their homes back
Kind of confirms that such self-acclaimed Christians are best left to their own devices
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:13 PM

Jim Carroll says: "The church has trditionally supported the right - Franco - Pinochet - some of the worst of the worst"

I think, Jim, that you will find church people on both sides of every struggle, throughout history. Your mistake is to consider churches monolithic. That never has been the case. It is true, however, that those in the Ruling Class tend to side with those in the Ruling Class (including the Ruling Class in churches). I tend to believe in the importance and power and intelligence of those who are not part of the Ruling Class.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:18 PM

The church has trditionally supported the right

Archbishop Romero was also part of Catholic tradition. As were the people who made Reagan unwelcome when he visited Ireland - they'd been to Latin America working for the church and had seen first-hand what his foreign policy really meant.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:31 PM

"Archbishop Romero was also part of Catholic tradition. "
Anmd was quite possibly taken out by the Bishops - he was certainly given a rough time by them
"I think, Jim, that you will find church people on both sides of every struggle"
I'm talking about the bit of the church that makes the policy Joe
I have no doubt that there are clergy who follow Christian teachings
Quite honestly - I've had my fill with how they have been behaving over the last few weeks over the refereendum (not the position thay take -their bahaviour) - beyond belief
If they don't guarantee themselves a place in Hell they certainly are heading for obscurity in Ireland at present
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 01:05 PM

"Our natural enemies are the Religious Right, who self-righteously use their religion to support racism and nationalism and other forms of oppression."

They're not your enemies. You have just fast-track sainted two of them, John-Paul II and Mother Teresa, quite likely the two worst of the last hundred years if you count people of influence. They're doing all the work for your Church while those of you who purport to be on the left provide the acceptable surface conscience gloss for the public consumption of the rest of us. You change nothing, really, do you? Just look at the Church's teachings on sex and contraception. Same old - outmoded, outdated, out of touch and thoroughly immoral. The only difference is that some of you are learning that breaking the rules won't actually pitch you into hell, you hope.


Belief in a supernatural deity is utterly ridiculous, Kevin. So is supporting Arsenal or Man U, of course. But, on any objective level, it is ridiculous. It just isn't very diplomatic of me to say so, that's all. I don't feel an especial need to be diplomatic about a phenomenon that is potentially so harmful.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 01:40 PM

Well, Steve, you and Jim are just as convinced of your righteousness, as are the born-again Christians. There are two vastly different approaches to religion, as different as night and day. You acknowledge the existence of only one of them, and condemn ALL who practice religion because the sins of the right. That, my friends, is bigotry, plain and simple.

I didn't "fast-track" John Paul II. I despised him.

As for Mother Teresa, I didn't care whether she became a saint or not, but I don't believe the demonizing propaganda of your friend Hitchens, who made a career out of demonizing Mother Teresa.

As for Catholic teaching on sex and contraception, I simply ignore the parts I don't accept. Millions of Catholics do the same.

You say I've changed nothing. Over the last ten years, I've been a leader and spokesman in an interfaith group that has built a homeless shelter and continues to operate it, and changed the philosophy of criminal justice and incarceration in our county, which used to pride itself in "using a stick instead of a carrot." Now we're working to mitigate the effects of the Trump war against immigrants.

All you see as important, is the power and ideology of the elite. Argue and condemn all you like, but your animosity is part of the problem. Ordinary people can make a big difference if they work together and don't get tied up in ideological squabbles. Ideological correctness is immaterial. What matters, is working with others and respecting them, to accomplish what needs to be done in this world.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:05 PM

"Your God would be very cross with you for that."

That one sticks in my craw,
so I'm spitting it out, sorry.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:22 PM

For folks who don't know what a humanist is
"UK Humanist" definition a of a humanist:-
"Bringing non-religious people together to develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them

Humanists are people who shape their own lives in the here and now, because we believe it's the only life we have. We make sense of the world through logic, reason, and evidence, and always seek to treat those around us with warmth, understanding, and respect."

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:25 PM

And that, Kenny B, I can applaud. Humanism should be a wonderful thing, not a rabid campaign to bring down anyone with religious beliefs.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:38 PM

I'm not convinced of any righteousness. Like you, I don't know whether there's a God or not. How is that "convinced" of anything?

You are involved in good works and I've always acknowledged that religion can yield such things and bemoaned the fact that we atheists are a disorganised, ragbag bunch who can't really do anything much in our collective name. However, you haven't changed the rules, the rules that are still used to repress millions of people, women especially, in the developing world. Which is what I meant, and I think you knew that.

The late Christopher Hitchens did not make a career out of demonising Mother Teresa. She was a very small part of the grist to his mill - and he told the truth about her. No demonising. Whether or not you care to check it out is, of course, up to you.

My personal heritage is Roman Catholic and a good deal of it travels with me still. The only people I ever condemn are those who use religion to manipulate and control people. Because I include the proselytisation of children in faith schools under that, you don't like it. I can't help that. It's my honest view of religious miseducation in schools.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Iains
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:44 PM

Bur, but, but if the Jesuits do not get them by 7 what happens then?????

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 18 - 03:19 PM

Well, the term "humanist" is used to refer to Christian humanists, and other religions.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Iains
Date: 14 May 18 - 03:38 PM

Of course Ignatious of Loyola said give me a child unti 7.......

So much for my 7 years of Jesuit education, though in my defense, for me it did not start until age 11.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 04:05 PM

I experienced a staunchly uncompromising Catholic education for thirteen years, the last seven at the hands of the Salesian Fathers and Brothers. I can honestly say that it did me no lasting harm, though the guilt I suffered from even thinking lusty thoughts about girls was tiresome. I saw no sexual abuse, and any physical abuse was sparing and of its time. There were good teachers and bad teachers, just like everywhere else. Like everywhere else, most of the teachers had the interests and wellbeing of the kids at heart. I taught in a Catholic school until I was 30 and in the early days I even taught religious education. I love the cultural heritage of Christian and Muslim religions that I see all over Europe, the architecture and the art, and a large proportion of the classical music I own and I listen to is religious.

So if you think there's going to be a barb, you're right. What I need like a hole in the head is some fellow going all defensive on me telling me that I take a narrow view and that I deal in certainties. That's just arse about face. OK, Joe?

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 18 - 04:58 PM

You rightly, I imagine, assume that Joe believes in turning the other cheek. I trust that bit of the conditioning may have remained with you, Steve.

I'm still waiting for you to suggest some scientific basis for caring out all this stuff.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 05:24 PM

You appear to be asking a silly question, strangely for you. I have strong opinions about a number of issues and when this one comes up I like to articulate in typed words where I am with it. That's all. There is almost certainly no God, a very easy point to support (quite likely you wouldn't want me to revisit that, but I will if you want), and I find it rather disappointing when those of the opposing viewpoint can respond only with defensiveness. Disappointing, but not surprising. The bottom line for me is, believe what you want, but keep it to yourself, otherwise I'm here, waiting with the challenge...

What's so wrong with that, Kevin?

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 May 18 - 05:39 PM

"...going all defensive on me,
telling me that I take a narrow view
and that I deal in certainties."

No, I wouldn't say it that way.

I would say that your stance is all about debate,
in which a good offense is the best defense.
Hence the negativity, cynicism, and abruptness in your choice of words.

The awareness of that which is greater than any one of us individuals,
is not something to be rammed into a pigeonhole,
and if that pigeonhole is institutionalized religion, you oppose it. Fine.

In conversation, alas, it is convenient to default to debate.
Many times I myself have been guilty of doing so,
and I regret this now, for the most part.
Sure, there are some occasions when only a debating stance is understood,
and so one defends oneself.

In my own history of speaking with others,
there are many, too many, who will not risk speaking with me again,
because of how I hurt them with my choice of words
and with my defensive attitude.
I regret the loss.
I speak here of those, like me, who are vulnerable under all those defenses.
More to the point,
I speak of those times when the injury I dealt the other person
was not at all personal,
it was in fact indifferent to that person, to the point of disregard.

Disregard and indifference, in the interest of responding to a challenge,
are as inhibiting to an opening of one's most vulnerable side
as is open hostility.

There are none so blind as those who will not see,
and I was blind for a long time.
I will regret it for the rest of my life.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 06:03 PM

"Hence the negativity, cynicism, and abruptness in your choice of words."

Rubbish. My words give you an objective challenge, and if you choose to get defensive (which you've just done), that's your problem.

Have a bit of context, keberoxou. You take offence at a few words I type here in cyberspace on 14 May 2018. You think I'm threatening your belief system (I'm not, not in the slightest, but I can't help it if you see it that way: all I ask is that you keep it to yourself). Well the thing is that I've been belaboured by Catholicism for all of my 67 years on this planet. I appear to have survived that quite well and come through the other end. But if you feel that I'm insulting you for five minutes on this website, think of the insults I've endured for sixty-seven years. The lies, the anti-education, the controlling, the threats of hellfire, the judgementalism, the fear of apostasy....your fit of pique is as nothing, n'est-ce pas?

Life is such a challenge...

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 06:05 PM

Apologies for the misspelling.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 May 18 - 06:38 PM

There speaks the voice of impatience.

Impatience is not amongst the deadly sins, nor need it be,
not like greed, anger, envy, sloth, and so on.
Impatient speakers can wreak havoc without committing the least of sins.

You have your context, you impatient whippersnapper,
and my context is out where you can read it,
in the final four paragraphs of my previous post.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 06:47 PM

You are incredibly judgemental and incredibly wrong. Whatever else my faults, impatience is not one of them. I'm throwing you challenges from a very calm and measured position, but you're responding defensively. I can't understand why you feel so insecure about your faith. You should be shrugging off people like me with ease. But you can't. Odd.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 May 18 - 06:50 PM

. . . none so blind . . .

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 07:09 PM

Nighty night! :-)

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Donuel
Date: 14 May 18 - 07:30 PM

I fully believe Joe Offer sincerely tried to make a difference.
I'm sure you guys see that too.
What more do you want,
a pound of flesh?

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 May 18 - 07:54 PM

Agreed, Donuel, however I suspect that some of us see it
and some of us see I don't know what else.

Defensiveness is a most remarkable presentation,
and I say that speaking from both sides --
I have been blindly defensive myself, and will be, I fear, again.
It's hard to let that down once it becomes second nature.

And I agree with what you, Donuel, and Joe, and Jack Campin were saying
about progressives within certain denominations.
Seems like there ought to be a way of considering that history
without anybody bringing on the heavy artillery.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 18 - 07:59 PM

Putting points to you honestly and directly is hardly "heavy artillery," and the fact that you see it that way is testament to your own defensiveness. Even Joe knows what a fluffy bunny I really am, though it'll be two or three threads down the line before he'll ever admit it again...

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 18 - 08:12 PM

"Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself". But you don't keep it to yourself, do you,, Steve. The very word you use for responses to what you write, "defensiveness" implies an attacker.

My point in asking you to give a scientific basis for your concern was that such things as concerns do not fit too readily into the world view you present. They are oriented to a future that isn't as yet there.

I don't in fact feel comfortable with that adage, "believe what you will, but keep it. To yourself". My preference would be, "Be open about what you believe, but without feeling any need to seek to impose those beliefs on others."

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 18 - 05:07 AM

"Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself". But you don't keep it to yourself, do you,, Steve. The very word you use for responses to what you write, "defensiveness" implies an attacker.

No it doesn't. Defensiveness in this topic implies confected righteous indignation, intended to attack criticism and blame the critic in place of honestly taking on their arguments.

What beliefs am I "not keeping to myself," Kevin? Now in this thread we've already had the routinely trotted-out insult that "I believe in science." I note that you didn't pick up on that canard. Concepts elicited by science are not "beliefs" as they are founded on evidence and reason. As I've made it clear that I don't know whether there's a God or not (oh for such honesty from believers!), I'm simply giving my opinions. I'd suggest that those opinions are based on reason, if not evidence (as there isn't any, but concepts that break every law of nature can be dealt with by reason alone). As for being free and open about religious belief, I challenge you to tell me how you can do that without giving succour to those of potentially like mind, your kids for example, helping to cement their own copycat beliefs in the face of a world full of doubt. In other words, proselytising. If as an adult I declared freely and openly that I believed in fairies at the bottom of my garden, I'd be ridiculed. I'd be best keeping that belief to myself, though if I did advertise it to the world at least I wouldn't doing anyone else any harm, and there's the rub.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 May 18 - 09:06 AM

Some of the people Jim doesn't believe exist.

Red Letter Christians

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 18 - 09:41 AM

If you believe something that is a belief. That's how the English language works. Nothing to do with how well founded that belief maybe. The one word fits all sizes.

You sincerely believe, I am sure, that the responses you evoke are assumed, and that those responding in a way you describe as defensive do not actually experience what you write as attacking. I believe that is a mistaken belief on your part.

There is no difficulty in any of us being open about our beliefs without trying to impose them on others. Try it.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 18 - 10:25 AM

They are my opinions, not my beliefs. Beliefs are held without reason or evidence, usually with a degree of unshiftable conviction or certainty. I'll justify my opinions to you any time you like. When I do, you may think I'm wrong, and I may be wrong, but that means there were flaws in my reasoning or gaps in the evidence that I underestimated. But beliefs, never. In this context the word has a specific meaning. You believe in God despite the fact that there's no evidence and that you've abandoned reason. It's no different to believing in Santa or the tooth fairy or your guardian angel. Objectively, it's just as childish. I have no beliefs that I can try to impose or not impose, but I do have opinions that I put forward for anyone to consider if they want to. I respect opinions opposing mine, as long as they're measured and free from hidden motives. Can't say much fairer than that.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 18 - 11:31 AM

I believe that evolution explains the diversity and origins of species.
Don't you Steve?
Beliefs are held without reason or evidence, usually with a degree of unshiftable conviction or certainty.

Not true. There is much evidence for evolution, and I find it convincing but I do not feel and unshiftable conviction.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 18 - 11:59 AM

I fully believe Joe Offer sincerely tried to make a difference.
I'm sure you guys see that too.
What more do you want,
a pound of flesh?

Hear, hear! Donuel.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 18 - 12:28 PM

I don't need to "believe" things that have mountains of evidence to support them. I hold the view that it is overwhelmingly likely (not certain), on grounds of evidence and reason, that the theory of evolution explains all the beauty, diversity and complexity of life on Earth. You believe in God. That's a notion that has no evidence to support it (a matter discussed here ad nauseam and which I will not revisit) and which can't be arrived at via the use of reason. In this context, and in the context of science, that's how I'm using the term "belief." You hold your belief with such unshakeable conviction and certainty, despite the absence of evidence, that you see no harm in obliging small children to be made to believe it too. After all, that's how you came to believe it too, in all probability. That's highly irrational. And not very nice.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Donuel
Date: 15 May 18 - 01:00 PM

Have you ever heard someone in the House of Commons being argumentative for the sake of argument and lose their thread of thought to the point they can not even agree with actual supporters.

There is truth, strategy and honor in being able to recant.
Some of you won't acknowledge a reasonable point for fear it would diminish your ego.

In America we say people who can't be honest with themselves as "he couldn't say shit if he had a mouthful".

A little flexibility won't make you younger but it could make you wiser, and help you avoid being a shithead.

Admittedly arguing is fun but the only people keeping score are in your imagination. If you want it to count, run for office.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 May 18 - 01:12 PM

Steve Shaw says: As I've made it clear that I don't know whether there's a God or not (oh for such honesty from believers!), I'm simply giving my opinions.

Up above, Joe Offer says: "And to counter Steve, I would suggest that what his dad and I see is the same thing he [Steve] sees, but we perceive a divine essence within that causes us to ponder in awe. I don't know that it matters whether that essence is reality or perception, and I don't know why Steve feels it is so important to deny that perception."

But Steve attempts to redefine what Joe has consistently said about God, and make Joe's perception of God into something else: So you attempt to harmonise it with your faith by suggesting (without a shred of evidence to support you) that God runs evolution or has inputs, such as "creating" human beings? Can't you see how silly and facile that is? It's not me taking a narrow view, Joe, it's you narrowing down and degrading the work of thousands of evolutionary biologists who, with respect, know a lot more about the science than you do... When I say that the essence of evolution is that there can be no conscious directional driving force or "intelligence" of any kind behind it, I'm not shutting you out. I'm just doing the science.

I don't have a simplistic view of God as some guy who goes around throwing the switches so all the trains run on time. I believe that everything that surrounds me follows the laws of science and logic exactly. But within all that surrounds me and all that is within me, I perceive something infinite that is worthy of awe and wonder - and that is what I perceive as God. The doctrines and rituals and myth help people to celebrate and recognize that essence that is worthy of awe and wonder, but those are things that I don't hold tightly to. I also recognize that the general concept of God is an anthropomorphism, but humans tend to think anthropomorpically - and maybe that's ok.

For me, while the laws of science and logic are true, they fail to explore the depth of meaning of that which surrounds us. For that, I have to go into the realm of poetry and myth and ritual and perhaps mysticism or nirvana.

Literalists cannot deal with poetry and myth and mysticism, so they find them untrue or worthless and find ritual to be empty. Steve seems to be more-or-less a literalist. Fundamentalist Christians and generally literalists, too. Steve's intelligence and education will not allow him to accept a literalist God, so he rightly rejects that God - and I applaud him for that.

Note again what I said: "[I] perceive a divine essence within that causes [me] to ponder in awe. I don't know that it matters whether that essence is reality or perception." But whether it is reality or perception, exploring that essence has been of great and deep value to me all my life.

Steve can use his Scientific Method to analyze love, too - and his analysis would be correct. To really appreciate love, one has to go into the realm of poetry and beyond. Same with death, or life. These things are mysteries that we can never fully define or explain - but nonetheless they are worthy of lifelong exploration, using the Scientific Method to its fullest extent, but also going deeper and farther than the Scientific Method will allow.

And that exploration will not produce absolute answers - it will produce only perceptions, but those perceptions are of infinite value.

-Joe Offer-

P.S. And yeah, I do acknowledge Steve to be a fluffy bunny (his words). Maybe that's why I enjoy debating with him.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 18 - 06:59 PM


I don't need to "believe" things that have mountains of evidence to support them

No, you don't "need" to believe - it’s just that you do believe those things, and those mountains of evidence are the basis for that belief.

We clearly disagree in what we understand the word belief to mean, Steve. My understanding is that it merely means that we see something being true. That is irrespective of whether we have extremely strong evidence for its truth, or indeed its truth is beyond reasonable doubt, or whether we have the flimsiest evidence, or whether indeed it is totally delusional. In all cases it is a belief, because we believe it. The one word covers all of them.

I'm not trying to compel anyone to believe anything, Steve. I think you are. The thing is, it can't really be done.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 18 - 07:14 PM

"I'm not trying to compel anyone to believe anything, Steve. I think you are. The thing is, it can't really be done."

And what precisely am I trying to "compel" anyone to believe? If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times: I don't care what people choose to believe. The problem with you believers is that you find it very, very hard to reconcile religious belief with science, therefore you try to marry the two by pretending that science is a belief system. Well it isn't. In fact, it's the very opposite. There is no room for belief in the scientific method. None whatever.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 18 - 08:41 PM

If you don’t care what people believe why do you keep posting about it?

As I said, we have very different understandings of what the word "believe" means. I think it covers a much wider range than you do. Both absolute and provisional beliefs, objective and subjective beliefs, false beliefs, and true beliefs.

I'm confused by "there is no room for belief in the scientific method". Do you mean there can be no room for a conviction of certainty, and therefore that everything is in principle provisional? On the basis that the scientific method is traditionally founded on a permanent readiness to doubt - you come up with a hypothesis, and set about trying to disprove it.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 18 - 02:33 AM

Steve Shaw says: If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times: I don't care what people choose to believe.

And often, he adds: unless they teach it to their kids.


I'm puzzled about Steve's objecting to people "believing" science. No, you can't go on "belief" when doing scientific research. But research by competent scientists is credible, which is another word for believable, and most people other than mindless ideologues do trust (and believe) in the work of credible scientists - without need to do the research for themselves.

In a court of law, jury members believe (or do not believe) a witness to be credible/believable.

We can't do all the research on everything ourselves. We have to trust/believe somebody, or we'd never make any progress in this world. I do hope, however, that we base our belief on credible evidence.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 18 - 04:45 AM

Steve,
The problem with you believers is that you find it very, very hard to reconcile religious belief with science,

Who told you that? It is not my experience at all.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 05:14 AM

That's the point, Joe (even though we don't agree on the point). What you believe (using tbe word in its sense of carrying a conviction that can't be shaken by lack of evidence or by contrary evidence) shouldn't impinge on anyone else. No-one should ever tell a child that there's a God. Children should be encouraged to be curious, to be critical, to question everything and be shown how to find evidence to find out what's really true. No child brought up that way would ever end up believing in God. So religions can't allow that to happen. That's sad and that's what I've got against religion. I'm keeping all the art, the music and the wonderful basilicas, by the way. They're mine as much as yours.

Most believers don't have to spend their energy trying to reconcile science with religion. For most people the two can run on parallel lines. After all, everyday science is a practical matter, even for researchers. The philosophy can wait 'til later. We're all allowed our own particular daily doses of irrationality, as I've said many times. We're not Vulcans. The problem comes when religion, realising that you can't actually deny science, tries to bend it a little in order to fit the belief system. Hence we get ridiculous attempts, for example, to invent a divine force that "kick-starts" evolution or which guides the process unseen or which has some hand in "creating" things. Science can sail by unconcerned by that, but the ensuing pseudo-science fed to the gullible is damaging.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 05:39 AM

Dealing with what you believe or take on trust when it comes to science, it isn't the same thing as religious belief. Consciously or unconsciously, you will be be weighing up your source, you'll be considering the reputation of the scientist or journal, asking yourself if there's an axe being ground or whether there's a bit of self-publicising going on. That's where the trust comes in. You will have used reason to assess your source of information. If you truly used reason to assess the existence or not of God, you'd dismiss the concept immediately.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 May 18 - 06:38 AM

This generic waffling about religion is just tedious self-indulgent crap. Who the hell do you expect will be interested in reading it?

Meanwhile, if somebody can tell me how there came to be a fraction of the Catholic church that promotes climate change denial, and where it's currently going, I'd like to know. It's a political force that has slipped under the radar of every news outlet I follow.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 18 - 08:55 AM

If you truly used reason to assess the existence or not of God, you'd dismiss the concept immediately.

Not true.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 18 - 09:36 AM

Everything posted here is tedious, self-indulgent crap, Jack. Unless you don't think it is. Do what I do: neither read nor post to 97.268% of threads.

Subject: RE: Catholic sexual abuse & climate denial
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 18 - 12:19 PM

Jack Campin says: Meanwhile, if somebody can tell me how there came to be a fraction of the Catholic church that promotes climate change denial, and where it's currently going, I'd like to know. It's a political force that has slipped under the radar of every news outlet I follow.

I'm sure we have some climate change deniers in the Catholic Church, Jack, but I don't think they're a significant force. What alarms me, is all the nice one-issue Catholics who cast their votes strictly on the candidate's position on the issue of abortion. Of course, there are one-issue pro-abortion people in the US, too. Both sides can see no importance in any issue other than abortion. It IS a significant issue, but certainly homelessness and mass incarceration and immigration are far more important and far more liable to change in the current age.

Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the U.S. in 1973, not one U.S. President of either party has done anything that would affect the legality of abortion. Therefore, abortion should be a non-issue in national politics in the U.S. But far too many people cast their votes on this one non-issue.

-Joe-