…and this is a 
Demons, angels…and now saints
Category: Religion
Posted on: October 6, 2007 5:11 PM, by PZ Myers
A certain evil old (and now deceased) affliction on the world is being considered for canonization, and they're tallying up miracles, an absurd activity in itself. One of the "miracles" they're weighing is that of a man whose kidney stone cleared up after visiting a children's home founded by Mother Teresa…an awfully tenuous connection, if you ask me, and a rather trivial event. Time magazine starts to agree:
At first glance the elimination of a mineral deposit may seem too insignificant to merit sainthood.
But then of course they go on to make excuses for it. They should have stopped there.
It is insignificant. The connection is thin. The whole premise of sainthood is supernatural silliness. It's just one big charade.
Consider St. Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, whom Pope Benedict XVI canonized last December. Galvao, who died in 1822 (he was on the slow track) was a Franciscan monk in Sao Paolo who distributed "pills" that were actually folded bits of rice paper bearing the prayer: "After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf." Believers swallowed them for various ailments. After Galvao's death nuns in his monastery took up the pill production. According to England's Daily Telegraph, as his cause for sainthood began picking up steam, they were up to 10,000 pills a day. The Telegraph reported that the local hierarchy opposed the practice, and a senior archbishop commented that it "foster[s] suspicion." However, the Vatican was apparently satisfied.
Laugh long and hard at the Catholic church. They have a process for posthumously rewarding charlatans for successful chicanery.
Comments
MT was probably the worst choice for a Nobel Peace prize ever awarded. Period. As otheres have said, she was a great friend of poverty, but not the poor.
Posted by: Dahan | October 6, 2007 5:31 PM
K, next time I'll spell others without the extra "E".
Posted by: Dahan | October 6, 2007 5:32 PM
Credulity knows no bound. Recently, a Maltese priest was made a saint. What was his miracle? A young child, who was suffering an affliction that was 90% fatal, was touched by the glove of the deceased priest. His parents must have stolen it from a reliquary. Apparently, the fact that 1 in 10 spontaneously recover without the brushing of glove didn't stay the catholic church declaring that the priest goaded god into saving this kid whilst millions of others died in excruciating pain.
On a slightly unrelated note, doesn't praying to a saint or angel constitute polytheism?
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 5:36 PM
This, too, shall pass.
Posted by: Russell | October 6, 2007 5:39 PM
I see these as a sign of theistic desperation. Obviously the Catholic Church is desperate to cannonize Mother Teresa, so they'll fudge a bit on what is an accepted "miracle". Much better public relations than admitting they can't find evidence of any miracles.
Posted by: Axolotl | October 6, 2007 5:52 PM
Axolotl #5, I though "cannonisation" was reserved for Hunter S. Thompson.
Dahan #1, I think Tom Lehrer said that satire was dead after Henry Kissinger received the prize.
Finally, I'm reminded of one of my favourite books (but I haven't read much, so it doesn't count for much), Earthly Powers. The late pope Gregory XVII is up for canonisation, and through many digressions we come to learn that his main miracle was a 'mistake'. The nuntius promptly sweeps the evidence under the carpet.
Posted by: Sili | October 6, 2007 6:05 PM
I've been in some debates with Catholic apologists, and they've always been High Philosophy, as they argue on Aristotle and Aquinas and the foundations of science as grounded in their rational God. Their arguments tend to be of the "humanism came out of Catholicism" ilk -- which is not really true, but certainly more cordial than the usual fundamentalist attacks against humanism. The Catholic Church, they assure me, does not have the anthropomorphic, supernatural elements so lamentable in the lower Protestant sects.
So what about this crap? The miracles and healings and Virgin Mary statues weeping blood and Jesus's face on a tortilla? Ah, but that's the people. That's not the theology.
Very annoying.
Posted by: Sastra | October 6, 2007 6:08 PM
Whenever I feel like an idiot for voting Democratic, I remind myself how very many otherwise intelligent people are Catholics and attempt to maintain the pretence of believing that a funny-looking guy in a hat can be voted into infallibility and that demented horseshit, the Nicean creed, his oldest-continually-running medicine show sells.
Posted by: darwinfinch | October 6, 2007 6:10 PM
Re Dahan
"MT was probably the worst choice for a Nobel Peace prize ever awarded. Period. As otheres have said, she was a great friend of poverty, but not the poor."
I think that Yasir Arafat was far worse.
Posted by: SLC | October 6, 2007 6:22 PM
I've already commented re: my girlfriends and angels/demons. Neither one of them is, fortunately, a saint. Therefore, I can only conclude (with some perverse disappointment) that saints do not exist.;)
Posted by: Jorg | October 6, 2007 6:24 PM
One of my pet peeves is the sadly common notion, endlessly promoted by intellectual Catholics, that Catholic theology is more firmly grounded in reason than that of those know-nothing protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals. Yes, Catholicism has a certain intellectual tradition that is absent from most protestant sects. But it's the intellectualization of nonsense. It's not just things like the virgin birth and papal infallibility, it's more basic than that. Catholic teaching is creationist to the core. The Catholic Church teaches not merely that one may believe in God through faith, but that the existence of God--the creator God of Catholicism, that is, not some mere abstract philosopher's God--may be "known" with "certainty" through reason. This seems to be an even stronger version of Dembski's definition of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 6:30 PM
There really are Catholics who go and pray at a reliquary containing bits and pieces of dead people. I've seen it.
Posted by: John Morales | October 6, 2007 6:42 PM
Too true. Sometimes I think the combatants in the argument over Catholic tradition versus Protestant reformation are like nerds arguing whether the original Star Trek was better than Star Trek: The Next Generation. Or maybe Star Trek versus Lost in Space. It can be an amusing parlor game, as long as you don't think you're actually proving anything. Works of fiction are fictional, even if you enjoy quibbling about internal consistency or cleverness.
Posted by: Zeno | October 6, 2007 6:51 PM
"After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf." Believers swallowed them for various ailments."
Ailments reversed by Spontaneous Hymenal Repair?
Posted by: arcanum | October 6, 2007 6:57 PM
I believe Star Trek DS9 is the best series in the franchise. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Angie | October 6, 2007 7:01 PM
Zeno (#13), that is a beautifully apposite simile.
Posted by: John Morales | October 6, 2007 7:13 PM
"However, verifiable reports of posthumous miracles have apparently been scarce."
What a shocker.
Posted by: truth machine | October 6, 2007 7:14 PM
Ok, I'm setting myself up here but I've got to ask the question....
What harm can it do?
OK, I agree that teaching erroneous lessons to children (I'm thinking ID here) is A Bad Thing and I whole-heartedly agree with virtually everything that has been said on the subject on these and other pages.
I don't think Mother Theresa will be canonized that quickly - the last pope is more likely, I would think - but whether she is or isn't, so what? It won't change most people's views of the church either pro or con. You can think of it as rewarding chicanery if you like but the point still stands. Does it really affect you? Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you feel it ecessary to have a go at every church decision that is made? Because, if so, you are missing out on the real arguments that are tearing the church apart - i.e. women priests and gay bishops.
I enjoy reading this blog. I enjoy reasoned debate. But choose a subject worthy of debate that is not just another anti-religion knee-jerk response.
Please.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 7:15 PM
"I think that Yasir Arafat was far worse."
We already know you're an arabophobic ass.
Posted by: truth machine | October 6, 2007 7:15 PM
I'm not so convinced that laughter is the appropriate or only response. The Catholic church has worked long and hard at perfecting its con-artist skills. It evolved them. The church should probably be viewed in much the same way as a particularly proficient serial killer might be. On an abstract level one might admire the advanced technique being employed, while still abhorring the depravity of the acts and the mentality behind them.
Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2007 7:20 PM
Zeno -- You're absolutely right. In my soon-to-be-terminated-capacity as a waiter, I had to stifle a loud guffaw when from a table of elderly people, in deep and serious discussion, came the following sentence: "The Catholics really believe that they are the only ones to get into heaven."
I don't imagine atheism is popular in italian restaurants, so it's probably good nobody asked me what i was smiling about.
And Angie is right. DS9 is the best Trek. But BSG is the best ever.
Also, there's a show on catholic TV, with two old Midwesterners travelling around European sites... the woman once said, "There have been miracles on this earth, and people are trying to cover it up. The saints existed, and they performed miracles! And the proof is here for all to see: for example, this fingerbone of St. Lucius has been preserved for over a century..."
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 7:23 PM
In a skit from an old episode of Saturday Night Live, Father Guido Sarducci was discussing the impending sainthood of someone. He wasn't so sure that this person deserved it because of the number of miracles that were required, "a couple of them were card tricks".
Still cracks me up.
Posted by: Larry | October 6, 2007 7:29 PM
Selina Morse,
Mother Teresa is a very famous modern Catholic nun and her canonization is a high-profile religious news story. I don't think you can seriously claim that in discussing this event we're trying to "have a go at every church decision that is made." It's a major story, and it provides a clear example of what we consider to be absurd Catholic teaching.
I'm not going to bother with your "What does it matter to you if someone believes X" question. We've been over that on this blog so many times before. When people believe nonsense, it matters.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 7:33 PM
Selina Morse:
If you live in a society that says lying is good and rewards liars, you live in a society heading for real problems. If you don't believe rewarding truth is healthy and rectifying falsehoods important then perhaps you need to be less secure in your beliefs.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 7:35 PM
Jason,
I know who Mother Theresa is. Better than you realise.
As I tried (unsuccesfully it seems) to make clear, I am happy that people question beliefs and erroneous teachings that directly affect others - particularly in the field of education. However, having lurked here for a few months now, it seems (I could be wrong) that almost every religious story seems to merit debunking. Particularly Christian religious stories (whether that's a political decision or not I don't know).
I don't honestly believe it's a major story - I'm an Anglican Priest and I hadn't heard of it so it strikes me we have a different definition of the word "major" here.
When people believe that they are taking medication and it's a placebo - it matters. In many cases, they get better. Does that lie make it a bad thing? I think not. Again, I would argue that if it harms no-one, then it can't be a bad thing. Conversely, if it can be shown to cause harm, then we are in a different ball game. As far as I can se, the canonisation of Mother Theresa will only affect the hard-line Roman Catholics, and those who have an axe to grind against anything religious.
If I am wrong in my analysis, please show me.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 7:45 PM
"If you live in a society that says lying is good and rewards liars, you live in a society heading for real problems."
You have heard of the Republican party, haven't you?
Posted by: Angie | October 6, 2007 7:54 PM
Selina Morse:
Nor I. The doctor would give a placebo because his training and experience suggest that medicine isn't warranted, and the patient wants a pill to feel better.
The catholic church makes untold money out of the lie that saints intercede get god to cure someone. If a doctor suggested he cut your leg off because you had a cold, you'd probably want some evidence of the efficacy of treatment. But people put off medical treatment, or waste their lives for an impossibility (the 3O providential god, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent that ordinary people believe in.) There is no evidence for this, and anybody church that promotes it is lying. That's why this should be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 7:54 PM
Wow. Can we have you back for a special colloqium on the christian foundations of morality?
There is clearly room for abuse in the practice you describe. Clearly, irrevocably, and it doesn't take much imagination to see where people could be seriously hurt by it. It also violates the principle that people have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies, but it nicely supports the religious position, that other people know what's best for you and its better for everyone if you just don't ask any questions. Do you see any harm in that philosophy?
Your argument that "if it harms noone..." is really quite narrow argument. I think the larger point is that once you sanction lies, bad things certainly have a greater possibility of happening.
Also, what problem do hardline Catholics have with Mother Theresa? I'm hadn't heard about that. I thought it was just Christopher Hitchens...
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 7:56 PM
Catholicism is also blatantly pagan. I mean, how many saints are there? Saints are immortal beings who perform miracles, i.e., they listen people and have supernatural abilities. That's a "god" by any decent heathen standard. Not to mention angels & demons & the virgin mother goddess. Hell, they weren't even satisfied with one god, they had to split him into three...
Posted by: efp | October 6, 2007 8:03 PM
Selina,
I might take your complaint more seriously if it weren't so obviously and absurdly exaggerated. We could not possibly debunk "almost every religious story" even if we wanted to. I have to wonder what you would consider the appropriate level of debunking to be. It would certainly be fair to say that strong and continuing criticism of religion is a major theme of this blog. I applaud that. I think the world would be a better place if there were much more criticism of religion. I seek to cultivate greater public skepticism towards religious claims, and greater public scrutiny of the effect of religious teachings.
When people believe that they are taking medication and it's a placebo - it matters. In many cases, they get better. Does that lie make it a bad thing? I think not.
Really? If a doctor lies to a patient about a medication, telling him it's a real drug when it's actually only a placebo, you don't think that matters? You don't think it's unethical for a doctor to lie to a patient about that? I'm amazed.
Again, I would argue that if it harms no-one, then it can't be a bad thing.
Well, I would argue that justified belief is preferable to unjustified belief regardless of consequences. But I deny the claim that promoting belief in miracles is harmless, anyway.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 8:04 PM
And trips to magical healing fountains cost people money. Money that might not be collected by the catholic church, but by airlines and hotels ... i honestly think that informed people are, as a rule, best able to make decisions.
If I'm wrong in my analysis, please show me.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 8:07 PM
Brian,
Agreed. The Roman Catholic Church has made an obscene amount of money charging people for the saints to intercede over the last two millenia. Not really a good example to show to our children.
Additionally, ignoring the medical advice of doctors waiting for the cure-all miracle is, again, a disaster waiting to happen. I don't know about the USA, but other than slightly odd sects in the UK (such as the Jehova's Witness) no church would ever advocate going against sage medical knowledge.
The problem, it seems to me, is that many of the loony religious fringe occupy the majority of the media hype. So we hear about the odd people who won't allow their child to be operated on because it goes against their religious beliefs.
And I agree with you - this is wrong. It is fraud. Any church that promotes it is lying - it is certainly causing Grevious Bodily Harm, and I would never condone any such actions.
And I think the majority of churchgoers would think similarly (at least I hope they would). Because it's all about love - and love doesn't tell lies.
So, as I say, I've nailed my colours to the mast. I trained as a scientist, have no problems with the universe being 14 billion years old and evolution being the right answer. But there must be better ways of putting your point across than having a go at Mother Theresa.
Next thing I know, you'll be telling me that George W Bush is a good president (no, that one really was a joke. Honest.)
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 8:12 PM
Selina,
The problem, it seems to me, is that many of the loony religious fringe occupy the majority of the media hype. So we hear about the odd people who won't allow their child to be operated on because it goes against their religious beliefs.
Why isn't every other belief held as a matter of religious faith also loony? Why, exactly, is an Anglican priest any more justified in believing through faith that God loves us and wants us to love on another than a Jehovah's Witness is in believing through faith that God wants him to withhold medical treatment from his child? Or, for that matter, than an Islamic fundamentalist is in believing through faith that God wants him to kill the infidels?
That's the thing about faith, you see. Unless you can explain why your faith should be considered a more reliable guide to God's will than the faith of a Jehovah's Witness or an Islamic fundamentalist, I don't know why you think your faith-beliefs should be regarded as any more worthy of respect than theirs.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 8:20 PM
I'm not the one who wrote the rules of canonization, Selina. If Catholics want to canonize Mother Theresa, they are more than welcome to. But, since Catholics are unable to change their rules, they can't canonize Mother Theresa without lying.
That's not my fault, and I'm not in the least sorry for pointing it out. If Catholics were as rational and sensible as their apologists make them out to be, it wouldn't be atheists that have to raise this point.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 8:23 PM
Selina, you argue that if it harms no-one, then it can't be a bad thing.
You also say you are an Anglican Priest.
I can't see how you reconcile these two without seriously harming the concept of "harm".
Posted by: John Morales | October 6, 2007 8:25 PM
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 8:29 PM
So if sick catholic folk pray to a saint and "in many cases" some get better, is that equivalent of taking a placebo? If a non-believer takes a placebo, will some obscure saint intercede anyway? Just trying to get my woo straight, here.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | October 6, 2007 8:31 PM
If you get better, it's because a saint interceded. If you get worse, it's because it's part of God's plan. I think it goes equally for non-believers as well as believers.
Amen.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 8:36 PM
I knew I was setting myself up on this one. I am not really trying to pick a fight - and sometimes my examples and use of English are not quite as clear cut as I would like. Particularly as I suspect I'm talking to people "across the pond" and some of my colloquialisms may be easily misunderstood. If that has been the case, I apologise in advance.
Regarding placebos.
What was I trying to say here? A doctor does not tell a patient that they are taking placebos (or do they? It would seem to negate the hoped effect if they did). The fact that they are can do no harm. True, it may do no good. In effect they have been led to believe that they are taking medication when, in fact they aren't. They get better (sometimes). Is the lie, therefore, immoral? I don't think so.
Some would argue that prayer has no observable - measurable - reality. I would have to agree. I have never seen anything I could honestly say was an actual miracle as a result of prayer. But many people believe that the prayer will help them get better. I am likening the thought of the prayer to the thought of the placebo here. Neither have any direct affect, but perhaps they both have a psychological effect. That was all I was trying to get across when I said that the lie can sometimes be good.
That notwithstanding, as I think I tried to explain above, I believe that abuse of this practise is a very dangerous thing. To shun actual medical help in favour of relying on prayer only is not only stupid, but, when it affects the health of children because of their parents' beliefs is downright criminal.
Jason.
I'm not trying to exaggerate stories. I've only been reading this particular blog for a while but it seemed that any religious story, however trivial, was worthy of attack. Perhaps I was being a bit too sensitive. Most of the science articles are well-worth reading. If I came across heavy-handed, I hope you will forgive me.
I agree that religion needs challenging. It does seem to be a little biased towards Christian religions - but as that's the predominant religion in the USA (and certainly with your President) that's understandable. I do try to see both sides of the argument. I'm not an advocate of some of the loonier ideas (like 6 days of creation, ID etc.) so please don't leap down my throat straight away - reasoned debate is a healthy attitude to take to any belief.
Please, good people. I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist. I'm just trying to understand the arguments on both sides. I just want to know.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 8:38 PM
Jason,
You have a good point regarding loony faiths. I would suggest that any faith that said you had to love your neighbour but was then interpreted in such a way to cause them anguish or pain was hypocritical to say the least. Loony is another way of putting it.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 8:44 PM
Inkadu
You are right. The reformers actually pointed that out back in the sixteenth century. The Roman Catholic Churh hasn't listned then and doesn't listen now.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 8:46 PM
John Morales,
I suspect you have something important to ask but I cannot really understand what it is you are asking - please amplify.
Inkadu - "Why are you so filled with hate?"
I was not aware that I was. Intrigued to know why you think I am.
Posted by: Selina Mors | October 6, 2007 8:49 PM
My comment....
Who the hell cares if anyone on this planet or anywhere else makes a ceremony of an ideal they personally/group wish to pursue?!
What does canonization really mean?!
It's meaningless.
It means nothing.
This is a purely christian ritual and ultimately worthless in the big scheme of things.
Who really cares?! I surely don't!
If this group chooses to engage in meaningless ceremonies to make themselves feel better, if that what their collective or individual psyche needs to do for fulfillment, whatever! I certainly don't care, as I am sure a lot of folks really could care less.
Why are we wasting our energies on such a subject?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | October 6, 2007 8:51 PM
Selina,
There are obvious risks to patients when doctors lie in the way you described. A patient who falsely believes he is receiving a beneficial drug when he is in fact receiving only a placebo is more likely to forgo other medical treatment that could improve his health. It might also cause him to forgo treatment for some other condition from a groundless fear of harmful drug interaction. Not to mention the fact that patients simply have a right to know what they are ingesting. I can't believe a medical ethics board would not find the doctor guilty of malpractise or some other form of professional misconduct for lying to his patients in this way.
An ethical use of placebos is in clinical drug trials to test the efficacy of a new drug. In that situation, rather than lying to the patient, the doctor tells him truthfully that the pill he receives may be a placebo or may be a real drug, and the patient can then decide whether he wishes to participate in the trial.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 8:55 PM
Why? She's an excellent example of just how nasty and harmful religion and religious people can be and of just how moronic, ignorant, gullible or outright dishonest other religious people can be in claiming such bad things to be good ones. Religious people like her are very dangerous because their faith allows them to ignore the importance of evidence and delude themselves (and others) into believing they are doing something good while actually committing evil acts instead.
By pretending they have divine authority, they get to avoid questioning their behaviour. Whereas self-doubt might lead a saner person to fully consider and then decide against doing the bad things which occur to them, a religious person blithely does them anyway - through having mis-identified the internal impulse as being from an unquestionable external authority.
You betray your own intrinsic badness on all these points by the (immoral and dishonest) side you choose to back on the placebo example. Incompetent doctors can do a lot of damage by deciding not to treat patients with real medicine but blaming them for faking it instead. Stupid patients can also harm themselves by voluntarily going to the conmen for fake remedies instead of getting a proper diagnosis and a genuine treatment. By supporting the telling of lies, you are an enabler of harm/evil. But then, by your own admission, you are a priest. So that's quite normal behaviour for you.
Liar! Unless you really are that ignorant or deluded to believe your own falsehoods. Eg "Does my bum look big in this?" is a standard question normally expected to elicit a lie through love. It's hardly a lone example. Meanwhile, your religion isn't really all about love at all. It merely lies about that too - a lot!
Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2007 8:59 PM
Jason,
Thank you for that.
I wish I were 100% certain that doctors never prescribe placebos when they believe the patient is not really ill. But I understand your argument - yes, placebos should only be used as part of a drugs trial. Point taken.
Not from a medical back ground - just an astronomical one so some of the medical ethics are a little wooly to me.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 8:59 PM
Selina, blasphemy comes to mind as an example of what I referred to in #35.
Is blasphemy a bad thing?
Posted by: John Morales | October 6, 2007 9:02 PM
Hi, Selina. Welcome to Pharyngula. I'm not qualified to speak for the group here, because I mostly lurk, but let me introduce you to one important new concept that I think are pretty widely shared by Pharyngulites here:
Reasoned debate is not a healthy attitude to take to any belief. You wouldn't sit down and argue with someone about leprechauns or gnomes, would you? The healthy attitude is to chuckle and walk away. Other healthy attitudes include pointing and laughing, as well as asking about any history of auditory or visual hallucinations, and inquiring about any recent changes to prescription. Religious, "faith-held," beliefs are just as ridiculous as beliefs in unicorns and dragons. The thing that I think defines the "New Atheism" (a label I embrace, others don't) is that revelation that religion claims should be treated with the same ridicule reserved for the Lochness monster.
As to your placebo comparison, it's an interesting parallel. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's not kosher for doctors to give placebo to patients. If it were, then trial studies would not tell patients there was a chance they would be in the placebo control group, and I know for a fact that they do, so someone must have a problem with it. On another level, you are again assuming that the doctor knows something the patient doesn't. This is a dangerous real-world assumption, and, maybe if you'd experienced American medical care, you'd be more sensitive to this possibility.
And one thing I personally put a lot of stake in, Selina, is the truth. I always think the truth is better. Sure, maybe some people take comfort in the idea that their baby is in heaven, waiting for them. But then there are people who still put place settings out for their dead children.
I struggle with the question sometimes, Selina, because I think I might be as programmed to value the truth as other people are programmed to wrap themselves in comfortable squishy lies. But at least I know that decisions based on the truth are likely to be made for the right reasons, and are more likely to have the expected outcomes, and, in the long run, are better for me personally, and for the society in general.
Also, yes, we don't like teh christ on Pharyngula. PZ lives in Jesusland, and I live in the United States, and Christianity is hands-down the most obnoxious popular religion in the United States (and probably Australia). It's part of the board's appeal for me, that in addition to the science articles, there is full throated support for atheism and a constant barrage of attacks on religious nonsense.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 9:07 PM
SEF,
What Vitriol!
Mother Theresa is an example of how nasty and harmful religin can be. Ah, yes. Caring for the poor and hungry - I can see how that can be a problem. And she was committing evil acts - wow! The media really missed out on that scoop didn't they?
I don't recall she ever claimed she had divine authority (although I'm sure you can cite reference when she did).
I "betray my own intrinsic badness"? What big words we are learning today. I hope you can back them up. You might want to look up legislation and libel while you are at it.
Grow up, little boy. Start engaging brain before engaging mouth.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 9:09 PM
Yet you pretended (in your post #25) to be able to have a valid opinion on the matter. Whereas it turns out that you lacked relevant knowledge (and knew that about yourself!) and evidently hadn't even put any serious (or, more crucially, successful) thought into the matter. How dishonest of you.
Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2007 9:10 PM
I don't get it, Selina Morse... you've gone into a room where lots of people are discussing something, and you say to them, "Why are you talking about this? Why don't you talk about something else?".
Anyway.. it should be clear to you that the problem is not one Albanian nun or one disappearing kidney stone, but a long-recurring pattern of deceit and patronizing exploitation. The rabble need their heroes and their magic, and the Vatican - even the "sophisticated theologians" among them - are more than willing to provide it.
Man in pew: "Mother Teresa zapped the kidney stone away!"
Theologian: "We see the real presence of the Holy Spirit, and resolve to face boldly the challenge of re-envisioning our mundane experience in terms of a healing reaching-outwardness, thus precisely affirming a departure from reductionism to the true reality of Being in God."
I would bet a lot that Ratzinger and his ilk don't really believe in this miracle. But I don't know who is worse...
Posted by: Pete | October 6, 2007 9:11 PM
Selina,
You have a good point regarding loony faiths. I would suggest that any faith that said you had to love your neighbour but was then interpreted in such a way to cause them anguish or pain was hypocritical to say the least. Loony is another way of putting it.
Then they're all loony, since they all endorse the infliction of pain and anguish under certain circumstances (even Quakers). For example, the Anglican Church, as far as I'm aware, does not oppose all war. It presumably justifies that position on the basis of some "greater good" argument (sometimes it is necessary to do horrible things for the greater good). And obviously, Jehovah's Witnesses and Islamic fundamentalists could make the same kind of argument to justify their actions.
In any case, whether a religion or its adherents are hypocritical or not, the question remains of why anyone's faith-beliefs are more reliable than anyone else's faith-beliefs. Why is an Anglican's faith a more reliable guide to the truth than the faith of the men who hijacked those planes on 9/11? It isn't. For all we know, the hijackers were right and God really did want them to kill the infidels.
Here's an idea: Instead of pretending that your faith is any better a guide to the truth than simply guessing, why not just admit that you don't know what the will of God really is, that you really don't have any basis for deciding one way or the other, and leave it at that?
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 9:13 PM
Selina -- "Why are you so filled with hate?" was addressed to Jason, and it was an in-joke (you're so cute!) between non-believers, who are accused of being filled with hate for merely pointing out things that the virgin birth is highly unlikely.
Also, good luck defending your "god is love, love doesn lie." It's religious hooey with no validity except that warm feeling you get when you minister about it.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 9:16 PM
No, not entirely. Although the media aren't exactly very perceptive and are often rather dishonest themselves. I keep some of the links handy because there's no shortage of people like you:
http://macintyre.com/content/view/533/105/
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/teresa0.htm
You should learn to read and comprehend other people's posts properly sometime. Then you might not get so much wrong about what was said.
You are projecting. That's your own fault which you are incorrectly attributing to others. Eg see the points you already got wrong through blundering into making false claims (placebo, love, Mother Teresa, etc).
Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2007 9:18 PM
I mean, I don't know who is worse, the sophisticated theologians or the simpleminded believers.
Posted by: Pete | October 6, 2007 9:18 PM
And to take it a step further, why not just do some research and note that loving each other is bred into the human species, human cooperation being vital to survival, and say that you would prefer to live in a world where people are nice to each other, and make the argument that most other people feel the same way, and that maybe it would be nice if we gave it a try? Hm? Nothing loony in any of that.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 9:19 PM
NB Trying again with just one link because ScienceBlogs doesn't approve of links very much and ate my post!
No, not entirely. Although the media aren't exactly very perceptive and are often rather dishonest themselves. I keep some of the links handy because there's no shortage of people like you:
http://macintyre.com/content/view/533/105/
You should learn to read and comprehend other people's posts properly sometime. Then you might not get so much wrong about what was said.
You are projecting. That's your own fault which you are incorrectly attributing to others. Eg see the points you already got wrong through blundering into making false claims (placebo, love, Mother Teresa, etc).
Posted by: SEF | October 6, 2007 9:20 PM
LeeLee1 Wrote:
If this group chooses to engage in meaningless ceremonies to make themselves feel better, if that what their collective or individual psyche needs to do for fulfillment, whatever! I certainly don't care, as I am sure a lot of folks really could care less.
... until they need to get an abortion.
Posted by: inkadu | October 6, 2007 9:24 PM
SEF, that link is a very depressing read.
Posted by: John Morales | October 6, 2007 9:25 PM
John Morales,
I'm still not clear I understand how you got to blasphemy from the argument I was purporting, but, on the whole, leaving belief aside, I would suggest that anything that offends anyone else is a bad thing. So that would presumably include blasphemy.
inkadu
Thanks for the welcome. As I said, I've been lurking for a while. It seems odd that a science based group which presumably relishes debate, doesn't ant to engage in debate on religion since it seems to feature so heavily in many posts.
Reasoned debate is a healthy debate to take to any belief - if only to debunk it. Assuming all beliefs are false is not really a scientific standpoint is it (unless it can be proven from the outset (waiting for the ICBM on that one))
I've already accepted that my placebo statement was a) not the best one I've ever come up with (not being a doctor and all that), and b) didn't get across the point I was trying to make. I do agree that the truth is important and I think that the majority of us are all seeking the truth.
The thing is, if a science blog (and I am a scientist - postgraduate degree level) seeks to have a reasoned discussion, and the subject turns to religion (which seems to pre-occupy this (and other) science blogs), then I'm going to respond. It may not make me popular, but, unless people get offensive (SEF - please take note) then I will be polite in return. I will listen to your arguments and will put mine to you. I am not immovable - I've already conceded that the placebo ws not the best defense about Mother Theresa; the point is that no-one seemed to realise that they are arguing about something trivial compared to the real problems concerning the church.
If PZ wants to throw me off this blog, then I will accept that decision. On occasion, I might even be able to comment on some of the science (On;y got biology at 'A' level - didn't pursue it to degree - chose astronomy and mathematics instead).
But I will, when I feel it's called for, comment on other items too. As I say, it's PZ's blog, so it's up to him.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 9:27 PM
Selina, you have really copped a battering. Brave person. Thanks for you response above. It seems like we agree on most thinks - that continuing the promotion of miracle workers, etc isn't good - except the god hypothesis.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 9:31 PM
Apologies for my spelling. Was distracted.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 9:32 PM
By the way Selina, what are the really big issues facing the church, if it's not being honest?
Just kidding, don't reply. They'll be at you like piranhas in those crappy 70's movies. ;)
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 9:45 PM
SEF
In post 25 I never pretended anything more than the common man on the street understood about placebos. You are fortunate in your knowledge about such things (as well as your extensive knowledge on the world's religions). I envy you.
Pete
I didn't say talk about something else - I asked what harm could the memory of this woman do. I can see that there is the reinforcement of a myth - not in miracles - but in the absolute autority of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree that this is not healthy, particularly if there is little evidence and a lot of abuse of this myth.
Jason
You make some valid points. I would argue that anyone of religious belief - particularly in a belief that stated "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" cannot under any circumstances advocate war. I don't believe God ever tells anyone, whether it was the knights of the crusades or the 911 terrorists to kill others. I think that this is just an excuse for people wanting to achieve their own ends. Religion has always been an excuse for warfare. Even a war on Terror.
I don't know the will of God any more than you do. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve slaughtering anyone.
Inkadu
Being nice to each other. Whether it's religion or evolution I don't care. It's not a bad philosophy either way.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 9:50 PM
Brian,
Thanks. I expected the bashing.
I was hoping to show that there are some Christians (or other religious persons) who aren't totally loopy (dangerous word, I know) who aren't as "fundamental" in their interpretation of the Bible.
Possibly I didn't pick the best moment to enter the debate - certainly from some of the postings on here it would seem that Mother Theresa was pretty indefensible - but it just seemed that many of the posts on this science blog were simply anti-religious and suggested that anyone religious had little (if no) understanding of science.
If this blog wants to bash religion with no response then I'll leave it be. If it really wants to discuss and deliberate the matter - I'll be here.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 9:57 PM
Well, not every religious story, but certainly most. If the story even comes to PZ's attention in the first place, he will probably not bother to comment about it unless it credulously reports some "miraculous" occurrence (PZ certainly doesn't believe in such, nor do most of the regulars around here) or it "reconciles" science and religion (what's the point of even trying to reconcile fact and fiction?).
The vast majority of religious stories are just ignored.
PZ can fill us in, if he wishes, on whether there are secret guidelines that he follows, but that's my take on how religious stories appear to be treated here.
Posted by: Zeno | October 6, 2007 9:59 PM
Brian,
And the big things that are affecting the church are:-
child abuse
homosexuality
women priests
Makes Mother Theresa seem like a saint really :-)
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 9:59 PM
Zeno
I totally agree. I'm fed up of seeing Jesus in my pizza topping as well.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 10:02 PM
I can't speak for others, but there are a few loopy religious types who I've encountered on this blog. I think that's why I go in pretty hard when I ask debate. It's interminably frustrating to be told that a book that says it's god's word and talks about god's activities is taken as infallible evidence that god exists as some bible bashers do. I mean that logic works equally well for people who hold that the Illiad proves the existence of Poseidon, et al.
Anyway, just to tempt fate. Why do you believe? I mean, as an astronomer, you couldn't hold that man, and the Earth are the point of a Universe? We can only see a small part of the universe, will never see all of it as we'll have evolved into a different beasty long before the sun cooks us, and won't ever explore much of it unless we get superluminal travel.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 10:03 PM
Selina Morse:
Makes Mother Theresa seem like a saint really :-)
All big ticket issues without a doubt. All are content issues, if I may risk getting burned myself. That is, that religion should be good, should be egalitarian because Plato (I mean Jesus) said to love your friend and enemies. But to me the big issue is if there's no reason to believe in god, it's a lie to believe. If you sanctify the lie, then it shouldn't be surprising that other corruptions creep in. Faith seems to me to sanctify lying.
Posted by: Brian English | October 6, 2007 10:08 PM
Selina,
You make some valid points. I would argue that anyone of religious belief - particularly in a belief that stated "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" cannot under any circumstances advocate war.
I find it hard to believe that even a majority of the members of your own religion, let alone all of them, believe that the Allies were wrong to go to war against Germany and Japan in World War II. Do you think that choice was wrong? Do you think the right thing to do, given the teachings of your religion, would have been to just let Hitler and the Nazis take over Europe, and perhaps ultimately the world?
I don't believe God ever tells anyone, whether it was the knights of the crusades or the 911 terrorists to kill others.
Why not? How do you have any clue what God wants?
I don't know the will of God any more than you do. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve slaughtering anyone.
Again, what possible basis do you have for this claim? How can you be "pretty sure" about what God wants one way or the other? It's absurd.
Posted by: Jason | October 6, 2007 10:09 PM
Just imagine, if we found life, however small, on any other world. God it would send the theologians into a tizwaz.
We are not central. No way. We can see a lot further than we can travel to. I suspect that will always be the case. Always new horizons.
Why do I believe. At a purely human point of view, I would like to believe that there is not just three score years and ten for us all. My dad died last year. I hope that that was not oblivion for him. From a selfish perspective, life after death keeps the memories of those who have died alive.
But that's not science. But then, neither is love.
This is the tricky bit, because to explain what it is that keeps my faith alive requires language that is not subjective but emotive. I have no proof in God or an afterlife. This will probably mean that many of you will dismiss me now.
But I cannot prove love exists - and yet it does. I have read the Good Book, and there is much to commend it and there is much that is allegorical.
All I can tell you is that, when I've been faced with difficult times, faith in a loving, helping God has given me the strength to get through them. Now you may say I'm drawing on internal resources. You may be right. But so may I.
Difficult to expres the gamut of emotions in a blog, but you might get the gist of it.
Posted by: Selina Morse | October 6, 2007 10:16 PM
Ms. Morse, I am sorry for the rough reception you got. I was also under the impression that some doctors prescribe placebos to hypochondriacal patients, and that once many did so routinely when they had nothing better to offer, but maybe I have read too many Patrick O'Brian novels about the British Navy (which doesn't seem possible, although I admit "Post Captain" starts slowly and takes a long time to get to the best battle scene ever).
By all means, show up to fight your corner