|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 08:35:46 [Permalink]
|
@:
I have no problem with anyone being critical of Mother Theresa. I simply ask that what's been said is fair. I don't think you have been. |
Noted.
A full financial accounting of what money was generated, where it is and how it was spent, or even if it was spent, would be nice. Even Hitchens has called for that.
The best we can do with what we know for sure is to make assumptions along those lines. But given what we know about MT's fund raising abilities based on her reputation as a saintly woman and the world-wide level celebrity she attained, I think certain assumptions can be made legitimately.
I'll grant you that we don't know everything, given that whatever structure is in place to deal with the money is not public record and so far both her order and the church have played that card close to the chest.
I don't think speculating that there were/are vast amounts of money that has been contributed to her order falls in to the range of wild, extraordinary, or even a challenge to common sense.
So what are we left with? Am I being unfair or you are being overly cautious? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in-between?
I understand that I can be called on a technicality that has merit from a critical thinking standpoint. But I think this may be a grey area where the use of critical thinking may lead us to a difference of opinion.
Also, in my opinion, her crisis of faith, which seems to have lasted several decades and right up to her death, is not particularly relevant to any discussion about how she operated her “charities.”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2007 : 09:15:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The reasons for religious belief vary from individual to individual. |
Non sequitur. The only valid question is whether religious belief can be defended as true. Since the answer is unequivocally "no," the fact that there exists multiple ways to be incorrect is inconsequential. It doesn't matter if you're religious because you love your parents or because you hate gays--in both cases you are equally wrong despite whatever reasons you may offer. Motive doesn't factor into correctness.
So really, Marf, enough with the emotional pleading. It's simply a diversion. Good people can still hold incorrect beliefs.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 09:37:32 [Permalink]
|
| But the idea that religion "comforts" people has been shown to be false. People use the same beliefs to both comfort and torture themselves. Religion, that is, the belief in the supernatural, is of no constructive use whatsoever, and the beliefs which lead people to need such things are themselves destructive, or at least potentially destructive. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 10:05:25 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: Not at all if you look at the context of the discussion I was having with Gorgo. He has been making assumptions willy nilly about how the religion of Catholicism relates to the actions, thoughts, and motivations of MT, and he makes these statements as if they are facts. I wrote that sentence to counter his assumptions about MT's experience with religious belief.
| The only valid question is whether religious belief can be defended as true. |
No, that is hardly the only valid question.
| Since the answer is unequivocally "no," the fact that there exists multiple ways to be incorrect is inconsequential. It doesn't matter if you're religious because you love your parents or because you hate gays--in both cases you are equally wrong despite whatever reasons you may offer. Motive doesn't factor into correctness. |
I totally disagree again based on the fact that different people regard belief and faith, God, souls, and a slew of other spiritual concepts in radically different ways. Many are indeed unequivocally wrong. For others, the question over whether they are literally true or not is irrelevant since they don't deal with that at all and aren't about making literal claims about reality.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2007 10:16:45 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 10:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: | But the idea that religion "comforts" people has been shown to be false. People use the same beliefs to both comfort and torture themselves. Religion, that is, the belief in the supernatural, is of no constructive use whatsoever, and the beliefs which lead people to need such things are themselves destructive, or at least potentially destructive. |
Individuals are not the same as everyone. The idea that religion comforts is true for many individuals. You admit this when you say that people use religious beliefs to both comfort and torture themselves. Religion is much more than belief in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is not always about plain literal claims. It is often about using literal ideas to get in touch with incomprehensible experiences, feelings, and mysteries that intellect cannot fully grasp. Much religion has no constructive use whatsoever. Much religion is in fact used in a very harmful way. And likewise, much religion is used to inspire benevolent action. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that religion is a destructive force and then deny that it is also a force for building and healing. Religion is far to broad and universal a thing to make such generalizations about.
The religion of MT is one extreme of a common oddity. It is sad that so many in the world look at her as some kind of hero, rather than as the eccentric masochist she was. It is sad that so many people think she helped people, instead of simply rearranging things culturally where she worked, without doing much at all to help the condition of life.
Too many people have blinders when it comes to religion. As soon as they regard a religious institution as legitimate, they think it is primarily a force for good, and then blame any shortcomings on corrupt individuals. But there are freethinkers who do the same thing by regarding religion as primarily a force for harm (which they do by pretending religion is only about false literal beliefs, as you have done Gorgo), and then crediting the good it does to exceptional individuals. The truth is somewhere in between... religion has the potential to encourage harm or good, but that potential is fulfilled depending on the individuals who adopt the religion.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 10:21:45 [Permalink]
|
Religion, that is a belief in the supernatural, is based on destructive, or potentially destructive beliefs.
You're right, I did not state what I meant very well. We have shown here that religion is believed to be a positive as it comforts people, and because it tortures people. According to those that say it has a benefit, not according to me.
I'm not talking about atheists who get together for ice cream socials and call themselves religious. Those people don't believe in the supernatural. I'm talking about people who believe in the supernatural. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 08/28/2007 10:25:55 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 11:29:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
For others, the question over whether they are literally true or not is irrelevant since they don't deal with that at all and aren't about making literal claims about reality. |
If a person acts as if their religious beliefs are literally true without caring whether or not they actually are literally true then that person is a complete nut case, worse than any fundy who every lived. The fact that you consider this a more enlightened position is mind boggling.
No, Marf. Such muddled beliefs are not compatible with critical thinking. They are not stronger ideas for their substancelessness or the carelessness with which they are held. That makes them worse.
If you worship a god that you aren't sure exists and aren't even concerned about it, then you pretty much have given up any pretense of being a rational, thinking person.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2007 11:50:24 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 14:49:26 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | If a person acts as if their religious beliefs are literally true without caring whether or not they actually are literally true then that person is a complete nut case, worse than any fundy who every lived. The fact that you consider this a more enlightened position is mind boggling. |
I find this hostile and narrow minded. You have zero curiosity about progressive, non-literal religious beliefs, which have been a part of the religious experience for thousands of years and are not incompatible with the values of skepticism. And now you denounce them as worse that fundamentalists based not on any of their harmful actions, but on your certainty of your own philosophical principles. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 14:50:42 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: | I'm not talking about atheists who get together for ice cream socials and call themselves religious. |
I'm not either. Look, Gorgo, we disagree about whether supernatural beliefs can have any value or not. That's the bottom line. Can we just end it there? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 15:21:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I find this hostile and narrow minded. |
Look, skepticism has rules. It is a narrow path and not everyone can hack it.
| You have zero curiosity about progressive, non-literal religious beliefs, which have been a part of the religious experience for thousands of years and are not incompatible with the values of skepticism. |
Faith is not compatible with skepticism. If you mean feelings of "awe" or "transcendence" strictly then you are no longer speaking about religion, nor do you have any right to place such universal human experiences under the label of religion.
And now you denounce them as worse that fundamentalists based not on any of their harmful actions, but on your certainty of your own philosophical principles.
|
My "philosophical principle" is a commitment to skepticism, which I'm more and more convinced is not something you understand.
Skepticism isn't just something which you can pick up or leave off whenever you feel like. It isn't something which you can dabble in. It takes a commitment. Skepticism means giving up what one wants to be true for what one can reasonably demonstrate to be true, always. It means prostrating oneself before the evidence. It means sacrifice, Marf. It means actively repressing personal whims and desires. It requires vigilance and perseverance, since there can be no exceptions on personal grounds.
Throwing all of that out the window to believe in some unprovable bogyman which makes you feel good can never be consistent with being a skeptic.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2007 15:21:50 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 15:57:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Faith is not compatible with skepticism. |
Including when a person compartmentalizes them. Compartmentalizing simply keeps them separate, it doesn't make them compatible.
Sorry for the interruption, this subject from old threads here and elsewhere on the Web finally just "clicked" for me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 16:05:37 [Permalink]
|
Humbert :
If a person acts as if their religious beliefs are literally true without caring whether or not they actually are literally true then that person is a complete nut case, worse than any fundy who every lived. |
Well, that pretty much describes how many Deists view God. And as religiosity goes, I'll take a Deist over a fundamentalist any day…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 16:19:24 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert:
Look, skepticism has rules. It is a narrow path and not everyone can hack it. |
I think I can best respond to this by quoting from the Bidlack part of my TAM4 report.
Me:
Dr. Hal Bidlack was next. I love this guy. He demonstrates that a person can believe in God and be a good skeptic. He is a friend of James Randi and big at the JREF. And, he believes in God. I have been arguing, for just about as long as I have been a skeptic, that a God belief does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to think critically. Bridlack is a deist. And there are other deists out there who have proven themselves of great value in the pursuit of science and skepticism. Personaly, I wouldn't even limit being a good skeptic, as far as the God question goes, to those who are strictly deist in their belief in God, as long as they can separate their faith in whatever religion they practice from the study of the natural world. (Dr. Kenneth Miller comes to mind.)
If personal spiritual fulfillment and the quest for knowledge of how the natural world works are not in conflict in the mind of the believer, why should I care if they go to church every Sunday? If a person's religiosity and my view on the God question becomes a point of disagreement, and with all we have to do as skeptics to bring reason to an irrational world, does our disagreement really matter? In my view, the more critical thinkers out there, the better. It isn't as though all skeptics agree on all things. And it isn't necessary that we do. If what we actually bring to the table serves to make this a more rational world, I will be content with that as the eventual outcome of our endeavors as skeptics.
Ok, so I digressed a bit. Sorry Hal. Among other things, Bidlack told a very personal story about his prayers to God during his wife's losing struggle with cancer. He seemed to wonder if the prayers were really intended to give him comfort. One very funny anecdote he told us was of a bumper sticker he saw that read “Militant Agnostic, I don't know if there's a God and you don't either!”
The panel discussion was next on the agenda. As it turned out, I had been sitting next to Karen Russell for most of the afternoon. And she was to be part of the discussion that was originally titled “Can a skeptic believe in God?” I, of course, had no idea I was sitting next to one of the panelists. We had a brief conversation about where I might obtain the same caffeinated beverage that she was drinking.
Randi introduced the panel discussion. After Hal Bidlack's talk I think it was a wise move to broaden the discussions focus to include science and a belief in God. The panelists were Julia Sweeney, Daniel Dennett, Randi, Hal Bidlack, Paul Porvenza, Michael Shermer, Ellen Johnson and Karen Russell.
And here comes my confession. Even with this all-star cast, I couldn't have cared less about the subject of the discussion. Frankly, the subject seemed rather ill-conceived to me. Since there are skeptics and scientists of note who hold some sort of God belief, clearly the answer to the question, to my way of thinking anyway, is yes. I had mentioned that earlier to Michelle, up in our hotel room. And given the continuing attack on science by the current administration and the religious right, not to mention other pressing matters of concern to skeptics, I think the time might have been better spent discussing how best to defend rationalism in light of this seemingly growing hostility toward science, critical thought and fre |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 16:35:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
H. Humbert:
Look, skepticism has rules. It is a narrow path and not everyone can hack it. |
I think I can best respond to this by quoting from the Bidlack part of my TAM4 report: I have been arguing, for just about as long as I have been a skeptic, that a God belief does not necessarily demonstrate an inability to think critically. |
But, Kil, it absolutely does indicate an inability to think critically in one large area--the question of god's existence. Just saying theism and critical thinking don't conflict without demonstrating how that is possible isn't very convincing.
Now, whether or not one must be skeptical in all areas in order to be a "good" skeptic is another question, which seems to be the one you're trying to answer in the rest of your quoted article. But as Dave noted, coexistence isn't evidence of compatibility.
And I agree that the topic of the meeting was ill-conceived. Of course a skeptic can believe in god. The better question is "Are belief in god and skepticism compatible?" The answer is a resounding no. It can be proven that regardless of whether or not god actually exists, belief in him isn't warranted. To a skeptic, that's supposed to mean something.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 16:39:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Gorgo wrote: | I'm not talking about atheists who get together for ice cream socials and call themselves religious. |
I'm not either. Look, Gorgo, we disagree about whether supernatural beliefs can have any value or not. That's the bottom line. Can we just end it there?
|
Something that doesn't exist can only have a false value. Is false value "valuable?" Only to those that don't think much of reality. If you don't think much of reality, then that would seem to have to have an effect on how you act around reality. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Crisis of Faith- Time Mag
