Demons, angels…and now saints

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.

K, next time I'll spell others without the extra "E".

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?

This, too, shall pass.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.;)

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.

There really are Catholics who go and pray at a reliquary containing bits and pieces of dead people. I've seen it.

Jason: Yes, Catholicism has a certain intellectual tradition that is absent from most protestant sects. But it's the intellectualization of nonsense.

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.

"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?

I believe Star Trek DS9 is the best series in the franchise. Prove me wrong.

Zeno (#13), that is a beautifully apposite simile.

"However, verifiable reports of posthumous miracles have apparently been scarce."

What a shocker.

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.

"I think that Yasir Arafat was far worse."

We already know you're an arabophobic ass.

Laugh long and hard at the Catholic church. They have a process for posthumously rewarding charlatans for successful chicanery.

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.

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..."

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.

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.

Selina Morse:

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?

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.

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.

"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?

Selina Morse:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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".

Why isn't every other belief held as a matter of religious faith also loony?

Why are you so filled with hate?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

there must be better ways of putting your point across than having a go at Mother Theresa.

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.

Because it's all about love - and love doesn't tell lies.

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!

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.

Selina, blasphemy comes to mind as an example of what I referred to in #35.
Is blasphemy a bad thing?

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.

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.

Not from a medical back ground - just an astronomical one so some of the medical ethics are a little wooly to me.

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.

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...

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?

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.

The media really missed out on that scoop didn't they?

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

I don't recall she ever claimed she had divine authority

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.

Start engaging brain before engaging mouth.

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).

I mean, I don't know who is worse, the sophisticated theologians or the simpleminded believers.

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?

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.

NB Trying again with just one link because ScienceBlogs doesn't approve of links very much and ate my post!

The media really missed out on that scoop didn't they?

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/

I don't recall she ever claimed she had divine authority

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.

Start engaging brain before engaging mouth.

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).

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.

SEF, that link is a very depressing read.

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.

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.

Apologies for my spelling. Was distracted.

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. ;)

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.

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.

Selina Morse: However, having lurked here for a few months now, it seems (I could be wrong) that almost every religious story seems to merit debunking.

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.

Brian,

And the big things that are affecting the church are:-

child abuse
homosexuality
women priests

Makes Mother Theresa seem like a saint really :-)

Zeno

I totally agree. I'm fed up of seeing Jesus in my pizza topping as well.

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.

Selina Morse:

child abuse
homosexuality
women priests

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.

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.

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.

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. As long as you appear to be sincere and willing to consider what others say I don't believe you will ever be banned.

Thanks for your answer Selina. Very common in what I'd term "thoughtful" believers. It seems to make religion about love, and nice stuff than the religion of believers who say do as Jesus says or he'll condemn you to endless suffering because you're born bad because god was justified in condeming all humans to suffering because he made them bad because he ...
Does it exists like an atom? I think it's more like sweetness in sugar. There's nothing sweet about sugar, but it proved useful for our evolutionary forbears to pig out on fruits when in season so that they got a ready supply of energy. So, we like sugary stuff when we eat it. Maybe love's like that. We love because it's useful to the species. I'm not saying your experience of love is not real to you, just as you might love the sweetness of caramel. But I'm not sure you can compare that with god which isn't need to explain anything.

So, where do you stand on virgin births? Logically incoherent trinities? Miracles, etc.

Hi, Selina.

I really wouldn't worry about being kicked off the blog -- you are participating in discussion. Expect some rough treatment, though, because most people here are not playing by the old rules when it comes to treating religion with any more respect than it is due as a mythological belief. In fact, many of us are are deeply concerned that the "faith" argument -- belief in things without evidence -- is an extremely large problem, since if you can believe without evidence, you can believe anything, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. In addition, the next bloke is likely to believe something different, because he just had to make up his faith-beliefs, just like you did, and he's not going to be swayed, either. So it's not for sure that you're going to end up machetting each other's children, but it just makes it all that more likely, and I'm uncomfortable with that. That said, I think I, at least, can be polite, if being polite means not directly insulting you personally.

Now, on to your post:
Reasoned debate. The reasoned debate has been had. Several times. It's over. Religion lost. All that's left is people clinging to their absurd rationalizations. Having reasoned debate with True Believers is, largely, quite pointless, let me assure you.

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'm not really sure about that one. I used to think that everything should be considered false, unless it could be proved to be true. Then, in a funky inverted way,I read Karl Popper, who basically said that anything that can be disproven, and fails to be disproven, is true. For a hypothesis to even be considered, it has to be testable, aka, falsifiable. (There's a great quote from Popper that says that science isn't about finding the truth, but about limitting error.)

Moving onto religion, a truce had been made in the past centuries, saying that religious beliefs fell out of the field of science (a truce recently codified as non-overlapping magisterium, or NOMA for short), partly because religious claims weren't testable. That's true, in a sense, it's hard to disprove that a miracle happened once, because it's not a repeatable event. But it's also true that religions make several claims about the nature of the universe that are quite testable. Does intercessory prayer improve outcomes? Simple and straightforward enough to test. Does visiting shrines result in more healing? Many religious claims are tested, and when they are, they turn out to be false. No wonder religious people want to keep science out of religion.

Then there's another category of religious claims, like "God created the Universe" (or God is love). That's impossible to disprove, just like it's impossible to disprove a tea pot Alpha Zed Zed Plural Alpha. Lots of religious people jump on that claim, "Aha! You can't disprove it! So you must have some kind of faith that God doesn't exist!" That when we atheist roll our eyes and say, "No, we don't believe it because if we bothered to believe all the universe of improbable things, we would never get out of bed in the morning. Being alive means working with what you do know, not what you can't prove, and there's no good reason to think that God created the Universe except that it makes me feel good. It also makes me feel good to believe I have a million dollars buried in my back yard. So what?"

So, anyway, to answer your blockquote, science can't be bothered with claims that are unfalsifiable, doubly so for claims that are both unfalsifiable and have absolutely no ground for being (to gently mock Tillich).

Like I said, the reasoned discussion's been had. If you're curious about it, you can read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Its the best introduction around -- and probably all you need,. It's nowhere near as complicated as trinitarian theology.

Also, I think the biggest problem with the Catholic church is that it exists. So, maybe your concerns about the state of the Catholic Church would be most appropriately directed to a different audience.

Selina (#25)

... I would argue that if it harms no-one, then it can't be a bad thing.

Selina (#59)

... I would suggest that anything that offends anyone else is a bad thing. So that would presumably include blasphemy.

I think there's a difference between "offend" and "harm" that you don't acknowledge.

Who does blasphemy harm, and how?

I strongly recommend Christopher Hitchens' "The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa In Theory and Practice"

Hitch makes a solid case that she was (at best) a deluded, cruel monster who fetishized other people's suffering and (at worse) a psychopathic nutbar who accepted money from donors who thought they were giving to help the poor - and spent it on building nunneries to carry on her legacy and promote her causes.

Sainthood is, of course, an utter crock. Why don't some of the miraculously healed go collect James Randi's $1 million? Oh... Right... Because their "cures" are bullsh*t.

... I would suggest that anything that offends anyone else is a bad thing.

I would suggest that it is a good thing. It toughens them up and makes them stronger and more likely to survive and pass on their jeans. :)

Brian,

"If there's no reason to believe in God"

Cephalopods are so much easier.

Look, I could be wrong. There may be no God. If I'm wrong then you are right, I'm wrong. You win. We all face oblivion.

I don't believe the universe works like that. You see, this is where science language breaks down, because, clearly I can't prove God exists - otherwise the churches would be full. And my science background riles against me here, but, to explain belief in God, you need emotion. Don't begin to tell me emotion is a biological concept linked to the procreation of the species. Utter prallocks. Otherwise, women who were past child-bearing age (or indeed homosexual love) would b totally irrational. Yet it clearly exists.

When you know someone is in love with you, you can feel it. Twee as it may sound, it's a bit like that with God.

That's awful, doesn't come out right at all, but it is 3:30a.m. here so it's not surprising

Jason puts a really tricky question regarding going to war in WWII. I don't think it was wrong. I struggle withthat as it goes against the "turn the other cheek" part of the Gospel, but then I'm a fallible human. I don't believe we fought the Germans on religious principle, though, but rather on political principle. I'm "pretty sure" (again, a language problem - it usually means "certain" in England) that we fought Germany but not through religious fervour

Selina,

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.

I don't want to dismiss you, I want you to think more carefully about the nature of your religious beliefs. You just conceded that they amount to wishful thinking, to what you hope is true. I don't know why it's so hard for you to see that wishing and hoping are not ways of finding out the truth. They are more likely to lead you to falsehoods. When you buy a lottery ticket, you may wish and hope with all your heart that it is the winning ticket, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is most likely a losing one.

You keep making strange statements about love. You say you can't "prove" that love "exists." Love is an emotion, a subejective experience. Like all subjective experiences (feeling pain, seeing the color red, being hungry, etc.) it "exists" in the sense that you experience it. Love "exists" in the same way that feeling hungry "exists." That is the "proof."

I have to say, though you claim to be a trained scientist and an Anglican priest, your writings here are naive and simple-minded in the extreme. You don't seem to have given any serious thought to the basic philosophical issues raised by your beliefs (don't they address that at all in Anglican seminaries?), or to show any facility for critical thinking, which is surprising for a scientist.

Don't begin to tell me emotion is a biological concept linked to the procreation of the species.Utter prallocks. Otherwise, women who were past child-bearing age (or indeed homosexual love)

Your tone seems to have changed. You have introduced a seemingly indefensible argument. I would say emotion is linked to the survival of genes, not individuals. As a species we do better socially, so strong emotional bonds would benefit more members of the species (gene carriers), and yes procreation is intrinsic to survival of genes. That doesn't mean we don't feel it as real, because if we didn't we'd stop caring when it became difficult and that wouldn't aid a social animal. Humans are not the only animal to have strong bonds, where one member of the species suffers or gives their life for others, by the way.

Actually, Mother Theresa WAS NOT MINISTERING TO THE POOR AND HUNGRY - she ran hospices for the dying. If you do your research, and read any accounts of the conditions within those hospices, you'll quickly form another opinion of her humanity, caring, and political agenda. She was a delusional psychotic who took the money that was given to her (including from people like Charles Keating and Baby Doc Duvalier!) and spent it - not to alleviate the suffering of the poor - but to build up her organization. In fact, Mother Theresa's sisterhood (at last time I read about it) is one of the few charities in India that does not report anything about what it does with its income.

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a segment about Mother Theresa's journals being published (in spite of her asking that they be destroyed upon her death). Apparently, in them, she writes of deep wracking doubt and disbelief in God. (Let's not quote-mine them, though... They're just the ramblings of an aging psychopath) The guy on NPR was describing some of the passages in which she writes about her problems with faith and all I could think was "this is a textbook view into the mind of a person who is being driven mad by contradictory beliefs and has suffered a psychotic break"... Seriously. It's straight out of Abnormal Psychology 101. But the faithful won't see that the words are those of a crazy old bugf*ck bat - they'll see it as the tortured path to deep faith. Ack! Puke! Religiotards make my stomach turn.

For example, the Anglican Church, as far as I'm aware, does not oppose all war.

The Anglican Church?? *Pfaugh!* - what - a religion based on the personal morals of Henry VIII

It doesn't get any better than that.

Jason

One thing I learned long ago (oh, and by the way, the Anglican church doesn't have seminaries) is to guage your audience in order to adress them at the relevant level.

Now, I have not really got the level right tonight.

Having said that, I have been bombarded on all sides by questions, rebuttals, contradictions, libellous statements and the occasional sense of humour, which I've tried to reply to.

It's very difficult to keep so many balls in the air when the tightrope you are standing on is being cut at the same time.

It is almost impossible to engage in a single strand of this debate to the level both you (and I) would wish because of the many and varied other strands which are being thrust in my direction at the same time.

I'm sorry if you found my writings "naive and simple-minded in the extreme" - no doubt this will simply reinforce your view of the nature of the Anglican Church (or possibly astronomers, but I suspect the latter is far less likely). All I can suggest is that if the debate had been on a single front (rather than everything from Mother Theresa (where we started) through to WWII) a more coherent debate might have ensued.

Critical thinking takes place outside of the debating chamber. An argument can be postulated, brief skirmishes made, the combatents retire and reconsider theor positions. That luxury is denied in a forum such as a blog.

And I can't type as quickly as you all can argue.

We've got a live one here. This is fun.

Selina, honestly, it's rare that we get someone intelligent that is willing to be open and honest with their religious beliefs here. I respect that. Certainly your interest as a science reader put puts you firmly outside the "troll" category. Secondly, you just wrote a post explaining that you can't explain your belief, and that is a real relief, because that's usually what the argument centers around. Third, because you can't explain it, you'd do a terrible job at proselytzing, so triple joy. Fourth, you are not defensive about your faith -- you're not "putting it to the test," -- but you're not girding on your holy armor either.

Now. On to the reaming.

You, like most 'rational' Christians acknowledge that you have no idea what God wants, and then almost immediately afterwards you say that you do have some idea. You seemed to have moved largely away from a purely Christian understanding of religion, and more into a fuzzy deistic one. There is a God, and he created the Universe, but he didn't create it for us necessarily. This seems to go against the gist of the bible... so I guess I'm just confused. What are you going on, exactly? How do you determine what's "true" and what's not? There must be a secondary source -- you've obviously taken some of your inspiration from the bible, but just as obviously, you have an independent mechanism indpendent of the bible that is editting the bible and creating a personal theology for yourself.

I don't know. I guess I should be giving you a hard time and all that, but I'm not feeling it. I'm just really curious about your journey, because I started life as a Christian and moved away from it, and I am always interested in people who have moved away, as it seems you have by quite a distance.

Also, mortality is a bitch. Religion does offer a sense of comfort in that arena, and that's probably one of the biggest reasons people stick to religion. But since rationalism took over, I've found mortality is not so bad. There are several different view points you can take on it. One friend of mine says he thinks being alive for eternity would be hell. "Do you know how long a time that is? That's like, a really, really, long time. I'd get bored." Secondly, the horror of death is mitigated when you realize that you won't be around to suffer through it. I think part of our monkey brains is thinking, "Wow, it's going to suck to be dead. There won't be anything at all do to do. I wont get to see my friends, or see how the Office ended, or any of that stuff." Well, here's a thought experiment: remember all those millions of years before you were born? Remember how horrible they were? No? Well, that's exactly how bad being dead is going to be. Third, Carl Sagan (and I really recommend you go out and watch the PBS miniseries Cosmos, both from a scientific, religious, and educational perspective) hits us with the fire hose of scientific wonder and awe that for me always surpasses the bland and boring cardboard awe of a perfect God doing perfect things and all that. Fourth, you can recall Brad Pitt's line in Troy, where he says,

Achilles: Let me tell you a secret, something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be more lovely than you are now. We will never be here again.

Kinda puts the love of life back into ya that way a choir of angels never could, eh? Eh?

Have a beer.

Marcus,

If you do Your research, you'll find that the Anglican Church had very litle to do with Henry VIII.

Oh, but it's easier to believe in "what everybody already knows". Right?

Selina: "...doesn't come out right at all, but it is 3:30a.m. here so it's not surprising".

Perhaps take a break?

Selina.. The ***entire*** Alternative medicine BS spreading across the world *is* nothing but placebos, and people telling them they do work. Prayer is the **same** thing. People die because they would rather take some wacky concoction of herbs, with no proven effect, rather than take real medications, which honest people will tell them don't always work, but are better than doing nothing at all, and certainly better than using something that doesn't work. Again, prayer does the same thing. People *die* because they would rather seek out some nut some place that promises to wave their hands over their bodies while babbling scripture, instead of seeking real help.

Doctors only usually use placebos in those cases where giving someone a real medication is a) impossible (such as they did in Korea when they ran out of Morphine on occasion), b) when dealing with someone that doesn't have anything wrong with them in the first place, or c) when giving them a real med would actually detract from their recovery. This is very different than offering to someone that is dying of a horrible disease to "heal" them with prayers, then march a bunch of people that had a hang nail in front of the audience, as "proof" of their great spiritual powers, while carefully hiding the photos under the carpet, which they took the day earlier while giving a sermon at the funeral of the guy they *cured* a day earlier. The one is someone promising the kiss the boo boo, the other is someone letting their kid bleed to death, because "god" will stop the bleeding if they are meant to live (if you need an extreme example of just how idiotic comparing the two is).

As for you last comment on, "imagining those I loved in heaven", helping to keep their memory alive... Ok, guilty as charged. I can imagine going back in time to keep my Grandma from dying from something as stupid as she did, or losing her capacity to reason as she faded, or a whole list of other imaginary things. Same with other people I have lost, either via death, or just losing contact with them. But here is the problem. Those things don't do a damn thing to help me keep the memory of who they really where, in the context of what, where and how I truly knew them. They instead replace what, who, when and where they once where with a fiction. With an invention of what I would have "liked" to be true, not what was. To do what you are doing, I would have to give up my real memories, in trade for make believe, fantasies, in which nothing, including who I am imagining in those fantasies, are truly who I pretend they are.

---

That said, here is one for you PZ. At least the EU has decided to keep their heads out of their backsides, unlike the US:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/10/european-parliament-passes-r…

inkadu

"We've got a live one here. This is fun."

Do you know, that's just what I thought.

Actually it's all true, and I'm not trying to prosyltize anyone. I enjoy debate. If it helps anyone - fine. If it helps me - better still. But don't swear at me - that's just rude.

Oh, and I'm old enough to remember Cosmos when it was first broadcast. I just look a lot younger ;-)

As to what God is like - I tried to say that language, particularly the written word, is pretty pathetic at it. Read a Shakepeare sonnet, or a poem by Browning. Read it. Now read it aloud. The words are more magical spoken than in print. That's a problem with blogs - they don't convey the emotion.

Selina,

I sympathize with your situation. You are seriously outnumbered, and you have been more forthcoming than most religious believers would be. In my experience, they are usually unwilling to try and defend their beliefs in any serious way. I also think some of the comments directed at you have been pretty unfair. But I have to say I was hoping for a more challenging defense of religious belief than you have offered.

If you do Your research, you'll find that the Anglican Church had very litle to do with Henry VIII.,

Make me laugh at you historical revisionism. Go ahead. Let me guess - you're saying that the "Anglican Tradition" was separate and distinct from Catholicism and dated back to some (whatever) distant time - and that Henry VIII's desire for a bit of extra nooky really had nothing whatsoever to do with the break. Right?

Listen, you've got a lot of damn gall accusing me of believing in "what everybody already knows" if what you're offering instead is some ridiculous bogused-up pseudohistory that's "spun" for the convenience of the church. It probably hasn't escaped the notice of many Pharyngula readers that religious organizations play pretty fast and loose with reality in order to justify, support, or whitewash their actions. You've got to do a damn sight better than accusing me of intellectual laziness if you're going to claim that the history of England is substantially different than what non-church scholars teach.

It's certainly a topic I'm rusty on and I have to confess I haven't spent a lot of time reading about the history of the anglican church - it was a footnote to the histories of Henry VIII I read when I was a kid.

I get so damn sick of dealing with religiotards who claim that their church's history stands outside of reality. Heck, the other day I bumped into a dumbass who was claiming that it was some church group that invented the notion of separation of church and state. What a crock!!!

Take your invented history and go try to sell it to the history department at Oxford.

Jason,

Sorry if I didn't meet the grade. As I said, 4:07 in the morning isn't my best time. And a single tank can't defend on all fronts at the same time.

Could have done a better job. Will try harder next time.

Oh, but it's easier to believe in "what everybody already knows". Right?

Like "Mother Teresa did a lot of good". Right?

Marcus,

Ok, matey. Get this right and I won't darken your doorstep ever again.

How many wives did Henry VIII have?

Selina, thanks for your answers. I really thought Henry VIII started the Anglican church to be able to get his rocks off with a woman who'd bear him a male heir legitimately because the Tudor line wasn't firmly entrenched at the time. But that's not something I've studied. I just thought he started it, but then others for various reasons continued it. Anyway not my field. Thanks again, sorry if you got upset. Perhaps the loss of your father is still fresh and it helps to think someone the love continues.
I'll let you tackle the others here. Night.

Don't begin to tell me emotion is a biological concept linked to the procreation of the species. Utter prallocks.

I'll save y'all a google search. Prallocks is a Selina neologism, apparently meaning, "to speak in a manner so bass-ackward you resembles a texas state board of education chair." (don't worry, selina, everyone here knows about about the texas state board of ed)

Link on bad astronomy.

Also: How could I forget, Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner?

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. I've seen Attack Ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've seen seabeams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time - like tears in the rain. Time to die.

Man, I wouldn't ever trade my copy of Blade Runner in for some ratty old Bible full of false promises.

Henry was then the second monarch of the House of Tudor, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry VIII is famous for having been married six times......Many significant pieces of legislation were enacted during Henry VIII's reign. They included the several Acts which severed the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church and established the king as the supreme head of the Church in England.

Bloody Wikipedia. Can't trust it.

Selina Morse writes:
When you know someone is in love with you, you can feel it. Twee as it may sound, it's a bit like that with God.

When someone is in love with you, they tell you. They look at you, their pupils dilate, and they sometimes jump on your and kiss you. Yes, you can feel that.

When you say "it's a bit like that with God" it sounds to me like you're talking pure unadulterated silliness. Have you ever been outside and just known it was going to rain - but it didn't? Or bet on a coin-toss because you knew it was going to come up heads - and you were wrong? When religiotards talk about "knowing" things from "God" they're directly relating exactly the same kind of experience.

Let me put it another way: you (being an Anglican, right?) allegedly believe in the same "God" that George Bush believes in. You "know" your "God" and he "knows" his "God" and they are the same "God". Since "your" "God" speaks to him and gives him advice (or so he thinks!) then you must agree 100% with everything he thinks and does - right?? Of course not. I assume you're not that f*cking stupid. But how do you rationalize the contradictions between what one religion-addled dimwit "knows" about "God" and you "know" about "God"? Has it ever occurred to you that (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you think Bush is a complete nutter)he thinks your "knowing" about the "God" you share is completely wrong?

Hint: you're all f*ckwits with imaginary playmates. We think you're all nutters. Wake up and smell the maple-nut crunch.

Inkadu and others,

As far as Star Trek, BSG, and all the rest, ok, they may have their moments, but the ultimate SF series of all time is and will always be Doctor Who, of course

Henry was then the second monarch of the House of Tudor, succeeding his father, Henry VII.

And he looked just like Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

I wonder what ol' Henry would make of this prediction by British sociologist Steve Bruce, based on an analysis of the decline of religion in Britain:

Unless it can find the secret that has eluded it for fifty years of decline or negotiate a reunion with the Church of England, the Methodist Church [in the UK] will finally fold around 2031. The Church of England will by then be reduced to a trivial voluntary association with a large portfolio of heritage property. Regular churchgoers will be too few to show up in representative national surveys.

Selina, Marcus. Heh.

This is fun. We should do this more often.

Marcus is angry, I notice. And I think he's right to be, because Selina accuses him of ignorant for know what is basically the truth.

If you go to http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
you'll see what I assume is the Church's version of its history, and it's pretty obviously an attempt to define the Anglican church separately from the Roman church, and does so in funadamentally dishonest ways.

The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.

There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before.

So there's some spin there -- it's not about nooky, Lutheranism was getting started up, and hey, it's just like the split with the orthodox church (which is a totally ridiculous comparison). But let's not split hairs. Here's what's Selina said:

If you do Your research, you'll find that the Anglican Church had very litle to do with Henry VIII.

Oh, but it's easier to believe in "what everybody already knows". Right?

Selina, here are your teeth. Thank you for playing.

Ok, matey. Get this right and I won't darken your doorstep ever again.

How many wives did Henry VIII have?

Nice attempt at dodging. If you're gonna play that card, why don't you just explain how Anglicanism has nothing to do with H VIII - deal with the real issue, and don't play "Trivial Pursuit" with me.

Marcus

Hint: At least we're not all rude.

You get a valentine card. You think you know who it's from but you don't definitely know who its from.

No physical evidence - dilating pupils. Kissing. The rest of it.

You walk around with your head in the air. Hmmmm.... is that maple nut crunch you can smell.

What's your problem? Has the church really hurt you so badly you need to have a go at somebody you've never met who simply supports the other team?

Marcus:

Hint: you're all f*ckwits with imaginary playmates. We think you're all nutters. Wake up and smell the maple-nut crunch.

Whoa back there! If religious belief is a delusion, or more charitably, something that fills a strong emotional need it's not something you just choose or don't choose. Some religious people are nutters, as are some atheists.
If Selina has post-doc in maths and physics, that's not evidence of fuckwittery, I'd say evidence of a very clever person. From what I can gather religion fills a psychological need for Selina. Which isn't to say religion is right or correct. And it encourages poor thinking and lots of nasty stuff. However, I just don't think you give up long held beliefs because someone calls you a fuckwit or nutter.
Feel free to call me those things for my comment. :)

As to what God is like - I tried to say that language, particularly the written word, is pretty pathetic at it. Read a Shakepeare sonnet, or a poem by Browning. Read it. Now read it aloud. The words are more magical spoken than in print. That's a problem with blogs - they don't convey the emotion.

That's not true at all. PZ has written some very affecting pieces, one just recently about the beautiful wondrousness of being a meat puppet. He's also written a great sermon on the Epic of Gilgamesh. And I gave you two good movie quotes that carry emotion. So God is like Rutger Hauer, Browning, Shakespeare or Brad Pitt? Even though I'm straight, I'm hoping for Brad Pitt.

It seems you confuse God with emotion. That's fine. I don't, for the most part, worry about religious people like you; the only problem with religious people like you is that you are a sizeable buffer to the more worrisome loonies. I mean, here you are, saying we shouldn't pick on poor Mother Theresa just because she ties peoples to beds, and that we shouldn't blaspheme. Do you know what I say to that? Bugger the Holy Spirit.

Meaning no disrespect to you, of course, miss.

Wasn't Henry VIII made protector of the faith (read: protector of the Roman church) when protestantism got going?

Hi Selina,

Mother Theresa is a big deal. It's surprising you don't think so. How many other people have won Nobel prizes certifying their compassion towards the helpless?

She's an icon for the act of selflessly caring for the sick and poor. An icon not just among Roman Catholics but, from personal experience, among Buddhists and Muslims too.

inkadu writes:
If you go to http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
you'll see what I assume is the Church's version of its history,

Oh, what utter bullsh*t!!

There's no question that christianity in England was ripe for schism - that's because it was falling apart at the seams all over the place at the time. But the fact remains that it was Henry VIII that did the deed. He probably didn't just do it for the nooky - maybe he was sick of seeing English gold going to Rome, too. He wouldn't have been the first king to figure that out (Philip IV did a pretty smooth move pocketing all the gold from the hit-job he did on the Templars) What that little spin-doctored screed of anglican propaganda inkadu refers to completely ignores is that the schism in England was part of an ongoing process of the church having its political fangs removed by monarchs who desired absolutism. The murder of poor Thomas Becket was not a "martyrdom" - it was a political act: the guy played politics against a sitting king and lost. Which is what usually happens because - well - Stalin was right ("How many divisions does the pope have?")

I think it's cute that you have your own F-ed up nonsensical version of history. That makes sense, really, since you have your own F-ed up nonsensical version of reality and it requires a ridiculous history to support it. After all, recognizing that the church (especially the church at the time when Henry VIII broke England from the catholic church) was a political entity that was utterly and deeply concerned with temporal power in the here and now. And, of course they're going to spin you a pretty pack of lies. Haven't you noticed that they're not at all ashamed to lie to you?

The early part of Henry's reign, however, saw the young king invade France, defeat Scottish forces at the Battle of Foldden Field (in which James IV of Scotland was slain), and write a treatise denouncing Martin Luther's Reformist ideals, for which the pope awarded Henry the title "Defender of the Faith".

The 1530's witnessed Henry's growing involvement in government, and a series of events which greatly altered England, as well as the whole of Western Christendom: the separation of the Church of England from Roman Catholicism. The separation was actually a by-product of Henry's obsession with producing a male heir; Catherine of Aragon failed to produce a male and the need to maintain dynastic legitimacy forced Henry to seek an annulment from the pope in order to marry Anne Boleyn.

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon41.html

Brian,

Thanks for the defense. I was simply counting to 10.

Marcus,

The original issue, was whether or not Mother Theresa should be canonized as a saint. I originally said that it didn't matter (if you recall, I used the phrase "What harm could it do" - clearly an awful lot.)

I have no axe to grind for Mother Theresa, I simply didn't think it particularly mattered any more. For a blog that prides itself on its atheism, religion has clearly meant an awful lot this eveining.

You all (as most of the UK) have a "hollywood" version of the reformation. True, Henry started the ball rolling in England, but Luther started it in Germany beforehand and it wasn't until Elizabeth I that the Anglican Church got established (Henry VIII had only 2 wives by the way - but you might not believe that either).

I don't know what drives you. What is it that illuminates you. A sports team. An individual. A state. A nation.

They are all just belief structures.

Work it out

Is it too early to type Selina?

The Polite Agitator, genus Innocentus - Whatever point they come in with is just a means to an end. The goal of the polite troll is to constantly jab, but do it in such a polite and sweet way! When someone finally reacts in a not-so-polite way by pointing out what a turd he is, the Polite Agitator kicks into Ms. Manners mode. Our grand crime is being impolite, tsk tsk! When it is pointed out that it is not the language but the message that is offensive, he claims innocence, based on his claim that polite language trumps all. Politely tell him to, in BB's words, "go fuck a garbage disposal."

from http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/species-of-troll-ii-more-varie…

Why don't we just cut to the chase?

Selina Morse claims to have been "trained as a scientist". What is a trained scientist doing as a priest?

He married Catherine of Aragon (widow of his brother, Arthur) in 1509, divorcing her in 1533; the union produced one daughter, Mary. Henry married the pregnant Anne Boleyn in 1533; she gave him another daughter, Elizabeth, but was executed for infidelity (a treasonous charge in the king's consort) in May 1536. He married Jane Seymour by the end of the same month, who died giving birth to Henry's lone male heir, Edward, in October 1536. Early in 1540, Henry arranged a marriage with Anne of Cleves, after viewing Hans Holbein's beautiful portrait of the German princess. In person, alas, Henry found her homely and the marriage was never consummated. In July 1540, he married the adulterous Catherine Howard - she was executed for infidelity in March 1542. Catherine Parr became his wife in 1543, providing for the needs of both Henry and his children until his death in 1547.

I'm not sure how you come up with only 2 wives. Please explain.....

Caledonian

I received my BSc.(hons) from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in 1987 (Astronomy and Astrophysics).
I received my MSc from the same university in 1989( Mathematical Techniques and their Applications).

I don't find any contradiction between science and religion - but then, I don't hold to the six days of creation.

Marcus,

You seem to know far more about English history than I profess to know. Presumably you know who Peyton Randolph is also?

Brian English writes:
However, I just don't think you give up long held beliefs because someone calls you a fuckwit or nutter.

Of course not. That'd be like telling a paranoid schizophrenic to "snap out of it!" and expecting them to get better.

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with people whose reason is so far gone that they're willing to base their lives on the influence of unspecific communicated feelings from an unsubstantiated, uh, something-or-other - reason's not goin to work with them. After all, if appeal to reason was going to work on the faithful, they would already not be faithful. Put differently: they believe because their ability to reason is flawed.

Just because someone was capable of getting advanced educational credentials and demonstrating high intelligence in spite of religious faith - that's great. They did pretty well in the face of a horrible handicap. What a shame they were indoctrinated in irrational superstition at a young age, or chose to discard rationality later in life. A mind really is a terrible thing to waste and religion is pretty much sh*tting in your brain and expecting you to sing hosannahs of gratitude.

The part that I find most fascinating about christian nutters is that they really don't seem to be able to cope with the "George Bush Question" - namely - if you all think you're getting insider information from the same divine being, then how can you disagree with eachother?

I know the religiotards like to accuse of "mean atheists" of not knowing our theology, but the "George Bush Question" raises some legitimate theological points. Strangely, I've never seen a christian even attempt to tackle it. I wouldn't, either, but then I don't have to because I am not a christian. If I thought I was sharing the same brain-waves as George Bush I'd run a forstner bit into my Wernicke's area until the voices stopped.

"If I thought I was sharing the same brain-waves as George Bush I'd run a forstner bit into my Wernicke's area until the voices stopped"

Amen

Here endeth the lesson

Marcus:

A mind really is a terrible thing to waste and religion is pretty much sh*tting in your brain and expecting you to sing hosannahs of gratitude.

Totally. I'm in full agreement. I guess I don't know how to reason with a true believer. Telling them they are excrement seems to invoke their martyr complex and they feel proud that they're suffering in the lords name......Hopefully, reasoned argument over many years will lead to the moment that a person lets go of irrational beliefs where vitriol fails. I do like a bit of mud slinging though. Hard to control myself somedays.
I'm studying psychology at the moment, but I don't have answers.

Wow.

Just wow.

Keep this phrase in mind people: If you do Your research, you'll find that the Anglican Church had very litle to do with Henry VIII.

Now here's Selina's defense:

You all (as most of the UK) have a "hollywood" version of the reformation.

We must have the story wrong. Lets here the real story, about how the Anglican church had very little do with Henry VIII.

True, Henry started the ball rolling in England, but Luther started it in Germany beforehand [...]

So, Henry just kinda picked up where Luther left off (except that he earned the title of Defender of the Faith for attacking), so technically, I guess if he didn't start the ball rolling first, you could say that technically that the Anglican church had very little do with Henry VIII.

and it wasn't until Elizabeth I that the Anglican Church got established

Right. So technically, Elizabeth established the church. All that Henry did was break away from the Roman Church, which, you know is, a pretty minor thing. It happens all the time, people. I mean, come on, the Orthodox Church split off from the Roman Catholic church a scant 500 years earlier! CLEARLY the Anglican church had very little do with Henry VIII.

Henry VIII had only 2 wives by the way - but you might not believe that either).

And this is the crushing coup de grace. Not only do you not understand the basics of what establishing churches means, you don't even know that Henry has only two wives! Ha! You guys are, like, sssooooooo stupid!

But wait, there's more!

For a blog that prides itself on its atheism, religion has clearly meant an awful lot this eveining.

Yeah, I think she's got us there. Atheissts do seem to care an awful lot about religion. I am so ashamed.

I've always found it just a bit of a giggle that the British monarch carries the title "Defensor Fidei" (Defender of the Faith) as supreme head of the Anglican church, since the epithet was originally awarded to Henry VIII by the pope. It was in recognition of his writing a book attacking the Protestant Reformation in Europe and defending Rome. The pope revoked the title in the wake of Henry's subsequent break with Rome, but Parliament was kind enough to issue the title on its own authority to Henry's son, Edward VI, from whom succeeding monarchs have inherited it.

One can quibble about the degree to which Henry VIII "founded" the Anglican church, but his rejection of papal supremacy in the wake of his failure to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Queen Catherine opened the door to its creation. The Church of England during the balance of Henry's reign was essentially Catholicism without the pope; obedience was transferred to the king. Anglicanism began to take hold with the accession of Edward VI, as exemplified by the issuance of the new Book of Common Prayer. However, the long-reigning Elizabeth favored a "high church" Anglicanism which severely disappointed the more radical Protestant reformers in England, who would have cheerfully done away with bishops and priests and cathedrals. Today Anglicanism continues to be a kind of Catholicism Lite.

Selina Morse writes:
I don't know what drives you. What is it that illuminates you. A sports team. An individual. A state. A nation.

Reality. Ben and Jerry's. Coffee. Not peeing on my own feet. The joy of constructing sentences. Thinking.

None of the above require underpinnings of lies or self-delusion (except maybe the Ben and Jerry's - I convince myself that ninjas keep eating it when my back is turned)

For a blog that prides itself on its atheism, religion has clearly meant an awful lot this eveining.

That sounds suspiciously like the "atheism is just another religious belief system" gambit. Typically, when a religiotard plays that one, the "nice atheist" is supposed to respond with some long gentle slow-pitch about how "no, atheism is not a belief system.." - but, you know what? I'm not one of those nice atheists. Let me put it to you differently: you're just embarrassed because you sound like a f*cking retard talking about your imaginary sky playmate, and you're trying to imply that I sound as stupid as you do. I don't. Trying to liken your belief system and mine is like trying to liken living your life in accordance with the holy book of spiderman compared to obeying the laws of gravity. You're delusional, and I'm not, and I don't take kindly to psychotics who try to project their mental disabilities on me.

Marcus, you are right. I always get suckered into debates, because I really do feel a sense of kinship, having been a Christian. But maybe there's a good reason I'm not a Christian anymore, and they're not, and I just need to accept that some people are trapped in the fur-lined cages of their own making.

Marcus writes:

After all, if appeal to reason was going to work on the faithful, they would already not be faithful. Put differently: they believe because their ability to reason is flawed.

Here endeth the lesson.

The Catholic Church, they assure me, does not have the anthropomorphic, supernatural elements so lamentable in the lower Protestant sects.

There are no 'lower' sects. They are all equal at the end of the day.

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 I would say Catholism definetly qualifies as loony.

But that's not science. But then, neither is love

Well, it kinda is bottomline.

I don't care why Henry split. Heshould have been allowed to spend his life with whom he wished. I appreciate your contribution here tonight Selina.

Be well.

Inakdu

Why are you so surprised? I have told no falsehoods.

Henry received his title of Defender of the faith for defending the faith from the German reformation.

The Anglican church was not properly established until the rule of James 1 - some 20 years after Henry's death (Elizabeth paved the way. The church in England became Catholic again after Henry when Mary Tudor became Queen for a few years).

Henry only had 2 wives. The rest were considered annulled (or at least not consumated). (OK this is a technical point, but it is a legal one nonetheless and it demonstrates that the facts we "know" are not necessarily true at all")

And George Washington was not the first president of America. Peyton Randolph was. Washington wqas the first President of the independant United States of America in 1789.

History is not as straightforward as we would like to believe. If you want fact, don't dismiss the supposed facts you already "know".

damnit.

should have been reading about spandrels.

grumble grumble.

Selina (#59)

I'm still not clear I understand how you got to blasphemy from the argument I was purporting

I asked "Who does blasphemy harm, and how?"

After you've slept and recovered, an answer would be interesting.

Selina,

I don't find any contradiction between science and religion - but then, I don't hold to the six days of creation.

If faith does not justify beliefs about what is true in science, why does it justify beliefs about what is true in religion? If you can't be "pretty sure" of your conclusions in your scientific work without strong evidence to support them, how can you be "pretty sure" that God doesn't want us to slaughter one another?

The rest were considered annulled (or at least not consumated). (OK this is a technical point, but it is a legal one nonetheless and it demonstrates that the facts we "know" are not necessarily true at all")

Please. If I marry a woman, and later get a divorce or anullment then she's my ex-wife. He married 6 times, he had six wives. That's just dishonest to suggest that because of politico-legal reasons he got quicky divorces or dodgy anullments that he only married twice.

I don't find any contradiction between science and religion

You don't find any contradiction between a system of thought that explicitly rejects faith, and a system of thought that explicitly embraces it?

Do tell on!

Marcus,

I might sound like a "f*cking retard talking about your imaginary sky playmate" but at least I don't need to resort to foul language to make a point.

I have tried to convert no-one. I started tonight's discourse simply asking if there were no better debates to be had than the canonisation of Mother Theresa. That could have been answered very simply with regard to some of the links that have been posted tonight. There was no need to get rude or personal about it.

Look on your shoulder. Find the chip and get rid of it.

Scientific debate should not be personal. Whatever your belief, I believe that religious debate should be similarly non-personal.

But I am clearly in the minority here.

Selina Morse writes:
You seem to know far more about English history than I profess to know.

I dunno. I know a bit. It's the downside of growing up with a father who was the chairman of a history department at an ivy league school. I got a lot of this kind of stuff at the dinner table. :|

History is not a science (really) but has some of the same properties. There are historians that come up with alternative universe-views and then there's the bigger consensus. Like in science, though, when someone makes claims that are extreme, they have to go to greater lengths to justify them - and if they succeed, they pull the mainstream of historians along with them. That anglican view of history is not going to go very far.

Your reaction to my comment about Henry VIII actually puzzled me, because the real situation was vastly worse than that the church was "founded on the personal morals of Henry VIII". That would have been nicer than the truth. The reality is that the church of england was a political pawn. Yes, the nooky issue figured, but really what was going on was the monarchy suborning the church because they had realized that religion helps keep the sheep in line and that it was a useful tool for political control. The Tudors deeply resented (as did most European monarchs!) the fact that the pope claimed dominion over "their" people and claimed the power to make his own ridiculous pronouncements that overrode their ridiculous pronouncements. The reformation was suborned by political leaders as a justification for consolidation of power, wars of conquest, and what today we'd call "ethnic cleansing." The deluded faithful served their usual role as food for the cannons.

So, when I originally took my shot at anglicanism, I was trying to be funny. But really, the whole church of england thing is pathetic. It's a proof-positive of how religion is used as a tool in the hands of cynical manipulators that are solely interested in power in the here-and-now. How can someone be proud to believe in such a sick, twisted joke?

If I were you, I'd go back to believing it was just that Henry wanted nookie.

"What is a trained scientist doing as a priest?"

Well, what was a trained clergyman--you know, that guy on the Beagle--doing as a scientist?

Selina @#63,
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.

Selina @#78,
Jason puts a really tricky question regarding going to war in WWII. I don't think it was wrong. I struggle withthat as it goes against the "turn the other cheek" part of the Gospel, but then I'm a fallible human.

So, you do not think WWII was wrong, but you do think that "anyone of religious belief" (you include yourself in that category, I assume) cannot under any circumstances advocate war.

Can you see the problem in this position?

I started tonight's discourse simply asking if there were no better debates to be had than the canonisation of Mother Theresa.

Certainly there are - you're experiencing some of them right now.

But as I think you've discovered, once you've opened that door, there's no stopping the infinite flood of monkeys with keyboards that pours through.

Politness troll with a bit of that gotcha trollisheness familiar to first graders who have to sit on the bus with third graders. Lovely.

Selina Morse writes:
I might sound like a "f*cking retard talking about your imaginary sky playmate" but at least I don't need to resort to foul language to make a point.

I don't need to resort to foul language to make a point. I use foul language because it amuses me, and it's a way of providing a certain earthy tone to my postings. I'm sorry you don't f*cking like it. I'm actually capable of being much more vicious and hurtful while remaining utterly polite - can you trust me on that point without a demonstration? I actually prefer to simply be f*cking aggressive, if that's OK with you.

Scientific debate should not be personal.

When you come over to the adult table with some scientific evidence that we can debate, then this will be a "scientific debate." But all I'm hearing from you is woo-woo feelings stuff about imaginary sky fairy, and distorted pseudo-history.

With respect to the chip that's on my shoulder: my chip is your problem. If you don't like it, walk away.

Caledonian:

there's no stopping the infinite flood of monkeys with keyboards that pours through.

As long as you concede I'm a hairless (mostly) ape with a keyboard I see no problem with your description applying to me. :)

Caledonian #130, it's barely safer to belief-systems than opening the door to intellecual honesty.

I also don't expect her to really address any of her internal contradicitons anyone has questions about.

She'll continue fight over split hairs (annulments? jesus h christ), complain that people are being rude to her, and claim the moral high ground in an attempt to make herself feel superior and foster an internal illusion that she's beat us in a logical debate.

#25 Selina: "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."

There are physiological mechanisms that explain the placebo effect, but they are weak and they don't persist. If a physician prescribed placebo in lieu of an effective medication, the patient would be justified in complaining. In double blind clinical trials, patients must sign that they give their informed consent to the possibility of being administered a placebo--that is, prescribed a lie. Are you likening canonization to the placebo effect?

Henry only had 2 wives. The rest were considered annulled (or at least not consumated). (OK this is a technical point, but it is a legal one nonetheless and it demonstrates that the facts we "know" are not necessarily true at all")

It's a marriage if the man signed the marriage contract. Perhaps the better use here is he wed six times. Whether a marriage is consumated or not is rather beside the point. All that matters is a wedding took place and he signed the paper. It's not as if he just shacked up with these ladies. He married them.

Frankly I don't care if he wed once or 100 times. It's not a moral issue and I don't see why some make it one. Marriages work or not.

If I marry a woman, and later get a divorce or anullment then she's my ex-wife. He married 6 times, he had six wives.

This isn't exactly correct. In the case of annullment it means a legit marriage never formed. A wife is a married woman. No marriage equals no wife.

Brian English writes:
Hopefully, reasoned argument over many years will lead to the moment that a person lets go of irrational beliefs where vitriol fails.

I see no evidence that reason works on the faithful. After all, if they were capable of reason, they already wouldn't be faithful. Every person of faith that I have ever seen or heard of has had ample opportunity to confront their faith with reason - and, if they're still believers, it hasn't worked yet. I never go into these things expecting that tonight's going to be my lucky night. ;)

Let me put it another way - how many times have you seen a believer come into a discussion like this and, halfway through, announce "wow! you're right! I just realized I've been an idiot all these years! thank you!" Ever see it? I have been debating the faith-addled in some form or another for over a decade and it's never happened to me once.

Reason does not work on the faithful; they are beyond reason. The best you'll get is that they occasionally pretend to listen to you out of politeness, until they can scrape together some more bizzaro whack-think to justify their ridiculous delusions.

So - I don't try to reason with them. I try to club them in the face with the 2x4 of contemptuous ridicule. That probably doesn't work, either, but I gave up pulling the wings off flies because it was cruel. The flies can't help being bugs, but religion is a lifestyle choice. And we've seen it established that it's OK to slam on people for lifestyle choices.

Brian English writes:
If I marry a woman, and later get a divorce or anullment then she's my ex-wife.

If she gets your 401K plan, your car, or your dog, she's your ex-wife. :)

Haha Marcus.

That one was pretty good for this time of night.

Marcus:

how many times have you seen a believer come into a discussion like this and, halfway through, announce "wow! you're right! I just realized I've been an idiot all these years! thank you!" Ever see it?

Sure. the way I wrote it was poor. I meant that after many years of chipping away with reason they'll realize that what was once a strong belief is now no more than an artifact or warm feeling and maybe discard it.
I have no idea. :)

Marcus, I've read a number of deconversion testimonials and internet exposure seems to be a factor in not a few.

Selina, if you're confused about the role of emotions as emergent behaviour in complex biological systems and their role in cementing social behaviour, I suggest taking a look at things like "kin selection" and the phenomenon of "uncle" wolves, for instance. Non-breeding members of social species still contribute to the propagation of the species by helping to ensure that the breeding members' offspring survive and prosper. It's about the same thing with human beings, except (especially these days) our "packs" are a lot bigger.

To be scurrilously Marxist about it, I don't know the name of the people who made my clothing, and I likely never will, but they too are helping me survive and prosper, just as I'm helping others do likewise. Collectively, we all benefit.

Incidentally, I've also studied enough history to smell just a jot of CofE spin when I see it... My current strongest area in history is ground transportation in North America between 1900 and 1960, however.

After much thought, I'm willing to give Sili his props. I'm willing to accept Kissinger as an equal to MT as being the most embarrassing and indeed ironic choices ever in regards to the NBP.

John Morales writes:
Marcus, I've read a number of deconversion testimonials and internet exposure seems to be a factor in not a few.

Oh, awesome, then! That's heartening.

Marcus, the comment was off the cuff, but a quick search supports what I think.

Back on the topic of Mother Theresa - one of the "miracles" (the ovarian cyst "cure") has been fairly thoroughly debunked.

In order to prevent claims that I am reference-mining all I can do is suggest that the curious reader perform their own research. "Mother Theresa Monica Besrals ovarian tumor" is a good starting google-string.

Summary: none of the doctors who allegedly claimed her condition was inoperable appear to exist. Possibly the doctors were angels? The patient was also undergoing conventional medical therapy for the problem. Probably more angels, huh? The patient, who is illiterate, produced an excellent document detailing her cure. Yet another miracle.

The church is fast-tracking Mother Theresa for sainthood because there are still morons out there who enjoy the pageantry of sainthood. And, consider this: what is the product of the catholic church? Religious stuff. Creating saints and excommunicating people and so forth - is what passes for marketing catholicism. Indeed, the fact that so much attention is being paid to a crazy old nutter is proof that it works as a marketing strategy.

Mother Theresa: just say "so what?"

#59 Selina: "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 assume that you are talking of religious beliefs. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant, so, given that so much claimed within religions has already been disproven (immeasurably better alternate, empirical explanation) by science, it is not unscientific to assume that religious beliefs are unfounded. If they were not unfounded, they would be accepted facts.

, given that so much claimed within religions has already been disproven (immeasurably better alternate, empirical explanation) by science, it is not unscientific to assume that religious beliefs are unfounded. If they were not unfounded, they would be accepted facts.

I can't help but pull out my favorite Stephen Colbert quote ever for this:

If religion were based on facts, it would be called science. And nobody would believe it.

Marcus, Brian - Good to know that some people come to their senses. I wish I was more like Marcus and less like Brian. It would save me a lot of time. From what I've seen tonight, Selina has some sort of short circuit in her brain that's going to keep her stuck until she joins Kurt Vonnegut up in heaven.

#85 Selina: "The Anglican Church had very litle to do with Henry VIII."

Is this a trick response in that Henry VIII, old fidei defensor himself, founded the Church of England. The Anglican Church is the Canadian version and the Episcopalian Church is American.

After Galvao's death nuns in his monastery took up the pill production.

Did anyone else read this as the "death nuns" belonging to Galvao and have to go back when the sentence stopped making sense?

#124 Selina:" how can you be "pretty sure" that God doesn't want us to slaughter one another?"

Human history suggests that if He existed, then that is precisely what He wants. Of course, all the evidence, particularly the human propensity for inventing mythologies, indicates there is no supernatural (meaningless but convenient category) agency. Strictly, I should say there is a vanishingly small probability that a deity exists.

I've always found it just a bit of a giggle that the British monarch carries the title "Defensor Fidei" (Defender of the Faith) as supreme head of the Anglican church

I have to repeat here a terrifically funny quip from Christopher Hitchens*...

..who pointed out that a significant percentage of the English population prays "God save The Queen" at least daily - and a quick glance at the royal family proves the effectiveness of prayer.

----
(* in the Great Blasphemy Debate - really worth listening to search for "hitchens fry blasphemy debate")

For a truly eye-opening fictionalization of what a kidney stone removal might have entailed in the 1700's, I recommend Neal Stephenson's wonderful The Baroque Cycle.

Selina Morse #18 said:

Ok, I'm setting myself up here but I've got to ask the question....
What harm can it do?

And for Selina, may I recommend Kurt Vonnegut's seminal Book of Bokonon, the first page of which warns the reader:

"Anyone who does not understand how a religion can be based upon foma (harmless lies) and still be useful, should not read this book."

A stupid question, yes. But can anyone tell me whether I'm an atheist?!!

I'm absolutely convinced that God or any such super natural thing doesn't exist. But I can't see anything wrong with people using God for a spiritual high as long as they are convinced that God doesn't exist.

God is like Cocaine, ain't it?

1) In child simple terms...lies harm the liar, so who does it harm is answered. Sure its a fine point, and one person's harm is not the same as another's, but that doesn't change the basic truth. We are all harmed by the wrong we do, others are harmed to a lesser or greater degree depending on what that harms is, but we are always part of the process.

2) In the case of canonizing Mother Theresa, who it harms are all those who experienced her "care". They deserve a better memorial than for their tormentor to be raised to sainthood. They no longer exist to care one way or another but it demeans us as a people not to remember them better. MT raised millions in her life and none of it was spent to aid the poor and the sick, most of it remains in Vatican banks. MT provided places where the poor and the sick could better experience their suffering and be brought closer to god as they died isolated from their loved ones, and denied medical aid that may have saved them. All the while claiming to be a good and decent person and reaping the rewards of that lie.

3) Until such time as someone regrows a limb by the power of prayer I'll continue to look to ambiguity and coincidence to explain ALL medical miracles. The theists's god apparently has some serious issues with amputees because they never receive divine intervention.

4) Annulments are an interesting fiction, a small fiction created by a greater fiction. Quite representative of religion in general, the idea that by saying a thing is true you can make a thing true. An annulment is the claim that because we say this marriage never happened it never happened, despite any real world evidence to the contrary. If religion can't manage to be truthful about the little things how can it be truthful about the big ones?

5) I don't think I'll ever cease to be fascinated by the compartmentalizations of thought that theists are capable of. To be able to hold two mutually exclusive positions in one head is impressive, and perhaps a bit scary. But it explains a great deal.

6) The novelizations of the Red Dwarf TV series does a far better job of explaining humans than the bible does...it says that deep down all humans believe all other humans are insane, which is a terribly lonely place to be. So we gather into groups for the express purpose of being able to say "that group is more insane than we are" and thus feel better about ourselves. Groups can be faiths, nations, supporters of the local football club or I suspect people on the nearest science blog. And unfortunately our general approach to people clearly more insane than we are is to kill them. Sadly we've had so much practice and become so good at it we are approaching a time when we can't afford to do it anymore. That's why sport is so important, sport is war done small and safe, we can gather and hate the lunatics without destroying ourselves.

No no, you're all wrong! The true number of wives Henry had was only one.

Henry considered Jane to be his sole "true" wife, being the only one who had given him the male heir he so desperately sought.

Marcus Ranum #138:

Reason does not work on the faithful; they are beyond reason. The best you'll get is that they occasionally pretend to listen to you out of politeness...

There's only mostly true. Farrell Till was once a fundamentalist preacher. But

Once the seeds of doubt had been planted in my mind, I began to see that the Bible wasn't a book with just a few problems; it was riddled with inconsistencies, discrepancies, contradictions, and absurdities.[my emphasis]

Admittedly, the "seeds of doubt" in this case were planted through personal bible study; but mightn't a rational argument do the same?

Wow. You guys are ripping poor Selena a new one...
I actually agree with her, though. I take the same view of religious people as I do of spiders. If they stay on their side of the room and out of my metaphorical hair, I'm fine with them.
Whatever Mother Theresa's faults, it would be a folly to say that she stood for some bigoted notion of white man's burden. It seems like a lot of the hospitals which were run down and squalid were out of her immediate control. She was a senile old woman whose legacy was being carried out by others at that point. Those who would accuse her of bigotry ought to ask themselves what they, as westerners expect of an Indian hospital for the dying and whether their basis for comparison takes cultural differences into account.
Being religious doesn't exclude a person from goodness, and that Mother Theresa did a damn good job at trying to be a "good" human being.
As a person who spent a good deal of her life privately questioning God, and trying to do the right thing because of it, I should think that this forum would be a little more sympathetic towards Mother Theresa.
As for the detractor from whom I'm assuming most people got information, Christopher Hitchens, can you honestly say that he doesn't have an axe to grind? This fuddy-duddy doesn't even like Harry Potter!
Even if Mother Theresa was some evil white supremacist who shoved dying children in squalid holes and then ate them for dinner, the Catholic church is not cannnizing the *real* Mother Theresa, they're canonizing the *ideal* Mother Theresa as an embodiment of altruism. I can't see anything wrong with that.
Flame away.

Late to the party.. tisk, tisk, tisk.

I don't have too much to add as Brian et al seem to have answered most questions. But I do feel the need to comment on the frightening normality of a statement that the religious bring to this forum. Now, both Heddle and Selina have answered, in regards to providing evidence for their beliefs, that they have none.

Carl Sagan is rolling in his grave. He put it well (as always) when talking about the invisible, incorporeal, heatless-fire breathing dragon that lives in his garage, in his book "The Demon Haunted World." What they're asking us to do "comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say so. The only thing you've learned from my insistance that there'e a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head" Earlier he states "If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say my dragon exists?"

This leads me to another point. All too often I see it stated that "science cannot disprove god." This is only true in a prefectly restrictive, academic sense. But as I am surrounded by a-toothfairyists, who understand the differenece between academic agnosticism and practical atheism, I will argue that on a practical level god can be easily disproven. As any god that the majority of human beings talk about has claimed influence on the natural world, then all we must do is test those claims scientifically. Victor Stenger's "God the Failed Hypothosis" takes just this route. Prayer is a perfect example, and all widely respected, peer reviewed studies turn out a negative answer on the existance of a prayer answering god. So where does that leave Selina and Heddle and the millions of other believers that not only believe with no evidence, but now must believe with evidence that disproves the existance of such a being?

As Selina herself preempted, once the admission of no evidence is given, many of us will not take her claims seriously. But, for good reason. How will the conversation had be any different than one about Sagan's dragon? As Nietzche is oft quoted, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

PS In case anyone missed it the first time round (#49):

Grow up, little boy.

Spot Selina immediately resorting to an (unevidenced and inaccurate) ad hominem attack because she is completely unable to address the actual arguments against her. She, like other religious people, has nothing - and she knows it.

Their first recourse is always to fantasise and their second (these days) is to threaten legal action. They can't muster any evidence or reasoned thought at all. The good thing is that they are no longer simply allowed to kill their betters who oppose them (although a few do go for it anyway).

In contrast, I make no assumptions about her age. She could be really old and still an idiot. Especially since there's not much chance of that tendency to idiocy changing while she protects herself from recognising it. Only if she were to acknowledge her idiocy would she be able to adopt measures to mitigate it. The simplest one being: learning to shut up about things on which she knows she is ignorant and hasn't thought, eg placebo!

If PZ wants to throw me off this blog

Why would he when you are providing such a telling example of how the supposedly moderate religious leadership is also shallow and dishonest (and intellectually incompetent)? It's not just the fundamentalists, it's all fantasists leaping to false conclusions they happen to like to believe and wilfully telling lies. They're all wishful thinking and no evidence - and rather scant reason. That's what being faith-based does to people - makes them more idiotic than they would otherwise be.

Scrabcake, Christopher Hitchens is not the only source of information that we are privy too. Yet even if he were, simply stating that he doesn't like Harry Potter is no reason to believe that his reporting of the acts of Theresea are biased. As a matter of fact the situations in his book are such common knowledge that the church itself hasn't even attempted to rebuttle.

People uneedingly died and suffered directly because of MT. Her idealized state does nothing to resolve that. Can you see anything wrong with that?

You get a valentine card. You think you know who it's from but you don't definitely know who its from.

You also don't really know that the person who sent it loves you. Not all valentine cards are genuine. Some are jokes. Although you've at least ruled out any self-sent ones (barring extreme memory problems!). Are you ignorant of reality or just unable to think things through?

Either way, you fail the test of evidence and reason once again by jumping to the false conclusion that someone loves you based merely on receipt of a card claiming that someone does. You do an even poorer job in assuming that the voices or impulses in your head are from an external superbeing, let alone a loving one.

An annulment is the claim that because we say this marriage never happened it never happened, despite any real world evidence to the contrary.

Eg those three acknowledged children by three separate wives! That shows the claim of just two wives to be a lie. It's also highly likely that Henry was lying about the other wives. The ceremonies are well-documented and the sex almost certainly happened. It's just that he was powerful enough to make his lies be the official version (though still not as far as the Pope and many other people at the time were concerned).

If religion can't manage to be truthful about the little things how can it be truthful about the big ones?

Indeed. Including that falsehood of having an idealised Mother Teresa.

Those who would accuse her of bigotry ought to ask themselves what they, as westerners expect of an Indian hospital for the dying and whether their basis for comparison takes cultural differences into account.

I expect them not to hoard $50mil in an overseas bank while reusing needles on the poor.

The Polite Agitator, genus Innocentus

It's only ever feigned politeness on their part, eg Selina's, anyway.

Real politeness and real respect for others would be bothering to read and comprehend what people have actually written and addressing that. Selina didn't and doesn't.

Real politeness and respect for others would be bothering to consider the truth or falsehood of things, so as not to insult people's intelligence or risk spreading misinformation, rather than simply writing the first rubbish which comes into one's head, including ad hominem attacks. Selina fails there too.

Real politeness and respect for others, and for oneself and one's own words, is bothering to make posts readable (proper spelling, grammar and punctuation rather than txt spk), so as not to waste other people's time over trying to decipher your posts when they are showing you the respect of assuming there might be something worthwhile in what you've posted. That's the only one at which Selina makes a fair attempt - but then she ruins it with her ill-considered content.

I love the image of "once you've opened that door, there's no stopping the infinite flood of monkeys with keyboards that pours through." As one of those monkeys: Thanks Caledonian, I very nearly wet myself laughing over that one.

The problem I see with the anonymous Valentines Day card giving you a feeling of being loved and comparing it to the feeling you get about god is that the person who gave it to you, though unknown, exists. The card itself exists (although, as SEF in post #164 says, that person may not love you quite the way you think or it may be a joke). The feeling of love, though maybe not quantifiable, has observable effects on a person physically and mentally and therefore exists. The awe and wonder we feel when looking at the stars at night or the Grand Canyon (or any emotion really) is because of the way our monkey brains are wired, not because of some nebulous nonexistent god. Why would feeling love = god when it is better explained by our evolution as social animals?

I hope all that made some kind of sense.
Cheers,
Ray

I tell you what -- any of you sophisticated theologians that want to argue that the Catholic Church is not harming anyone please watch EWTN (? I think - the Catholic channel - Eternal World Television Network or something like that - on cable) when they pump out crap like this in "kid friendly" adventure superhero form on Saturday morning TV.

These people (church leaders) are demented, perverted, dangerous people. Tony Soprano seems like a nice guy too!! Sociopaths and criminally mentally ill people mostly do!!

But I can't see anything wrong with people using God for a spiritual high as long as they are convinced that God doesn't exist.

But individual religious belief supports the religion industry... every kilogram of gold decorating the altar 'to glorify God' is money that could have been spent on famine relief, education, or contraception.

Every hour spent praying is an hour not spent healing the sick or feeding the hungry. Every priest employed to minister to the faithful is restricting his (its normally a man) ability to help people generally or contribute to a better world. Every religious martyr is someone who can no longer make the world a better place for all to live in.

Every contribution to the church/temple/mosque is money mostly spent supporting the religious hierachy, not doing good.

Having said that there are some religions/sects/philosophies that appear to be aimed at doing good or living a 'good' life - e.g. the Salvation Army, Sikhs, and the early Buddhists, very early Christians. But what you tend to find is that over time the ritual and hierachy squeeze out the good works in favour of maintaining the special club.

And so we come around to Mother Theresa and the Roman Catholic Church. Making Saints appears to be making 'more magic' for the masses (no pun intended) to consolidate church control. People outside the religion see it as a cynical power ploy - and that's why many non-believers are so critical.

Balai

I'm absolutely convinced that God or any such super natural thing doesn't exist. But I can't see anything wrong with people using God for a spiritual high as long as they are convinced that God doesn't exist.

First, yes, that still makes you an atheist. It might not make you a "new atheist," though.

Second, do any such people exist? It's pretty rare to find anyone who doesn't believe in God, and still uses it for a high. Because you can get just as high, without all that annoying "but it doesn't exist," stuff by thinking about things like "wow the universe is really big," and "i'm not going to be around for very long." If you don't believe in God, there's always a better high in considering reality.

That said, there are people who are "spiritual but not religious," and I think a lot of those people are feeling awe at the Universe but haven't really thought about it, or received much education. They don't worry me.

People like Selina, now, they are indirectly an issue, because they support the idea that faith is a good thing. Her attacks on "loony" religions are completely based on whether they are based on "love" or not. She would never join us in attacking the faith system of anyone, and she would actively condemn us for doing so (re: blasphemy). Not to mention any fundamentalist would clean her clock on biblical knowledge and make a much better case that God does want us to kill each other.

Scrabcake:

Even if Mother Theresa was some evil white supremacist who shoved dying children in squalid holes and then ate them for dinner, the Catholic church is not cannnizing the *real* Mother Theresa, they're canonizing the *ideal* Mother Theresa as an embodiment of altruism. I can't see anything wrong with that.

I think this pretty much sums it up. People like to build a mythology. Like when Lisa found out Jebidiah Springfield was a cheat and decided not to say anything...

But what does mother theresa represent? Mother Theresa was a saint of suffering. What she symbolizes is not helping others, but the catholic virtues of sacrifice and humiliation. MT thought loathed herself, so put herself in what she thought would be the most degrading position -- helping the poor. And since suffering was so great, she thought the poor should suffer with her as well. It would be good for them. Ok, well, I guess that not what she really represents to most people, but it's irksome.

But why should reality get in the way of a good story? That's really the definition of religious feeling.

Also, from a political standpoint, it'good to bring up the millions that she didn't spend, because that's the reality. The reality is that whatever warm and fuzzy feelings people had and have for mother theresa, that sending her money was just likely to add to the Catholic Church's endowment.

So here it is, my final statement on MT: If comforting yourself with lies at the expense of helping others is what is important to you, then by all means, canonize her.

Sef:

Real politeness and respect for others, and for oneself and one's own words, is bothering to make posts readable (proper spelling, grammar and punctuation rather than txt spk),

Uh oh. I'm in trouble. I don't preview a lot of what I post, and sometimes it's pretty sad what I put up there.

I can has deeb8?

Sigh.

But, back to Selina, yes, I think she obviously needs to say something about our attacks on religion, so she pipes up. But she can't really say anything to defend religion (ok, placebo effect -- anything substantial). So, finding herself in this situation of an unarmed Defensor Fidei, she throws up a bunch of smoke about something completely unrelated (Henry VIII? Semantics of "marriage"?) And because what she is saying is so idiotically provocative, we all take the bait, and forget about the sky-faerie nonsense. Except for Marcus, who keeps it front and center, even while simultaneously destroying her revisionist history.

It's interesting, because I've seen almost identical behavior on other boards. I don't think she's a bad person in any significant way, but I do think she's trapped into some really annoying conversational patterns by her self-protective belief systems.

Oh, yeah, and Brian, Selina's had a blog for 2 years. If the internet was going to work on her, it would have worked already.

every kilogram of gold decorating the altar 'to glorify God' is money that could have been spent on famine relief, education, or contraception.
Every hour spent praying is an hour not spent healing the sick or feeding the hungry.

I'd be cautious going down that route, since the same can be said for every dollar spent on Ben and Jerry's, and every hour spend playing Halo 3.

Selina,

I respect your courage in coming to this blog to defend your beliefs. I am sure you also are enjoying the bracing experience of being savaged by the pack response to any expression of views which do not conform to the group orthodoxy. In this respect, it is little different to the reception an atheist or agnostic would face if posting to a creationist blog.

I do not share your beliefs. I was raised in the Church of England but gradually lost my faith as I learned more about science and became aware of the inconsistencies and contradictions of Christian theology. I know how much solace, support and strength believers can draw from their faith when the worst happens. I understand the appeal of belief in a life after death as one's own end draws closer. But, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is anything other than wish-fulfillment.

For all practical purposes I am atheist, although I prefer to call myself agnostic because I believe it is important to emphasise doubt. People who doubt do not blow themselves and others up, fly planes into buildings, attempt Final Solutions or "purge" millions who do not share a faith or ideology. The danger lies in the certainty of knowing a particular 'truth', be it a belief in a god or the denial of that god's existence. Such certainty can justify simply being rude to those of differing views or it can be used to justify killing them. And the gap between the two is not always as wide as we might like.

As far as Mother Theresa is concerned, the vitriol poured on her reputation by Christopher Hitchens and others is both a reaction and, probably, a harsh but necessary antidote to the extreme adulation - often amounting to worship - which she was accorded. She herself was most likely a more complex personality than either caricature suggests. At least her faith inspired her to actually live and work amongst the poorest in society, rather than just preach about it in some obscenely expensive megachurch.

Lastly, as an alternative to the foul-mouthed jeers and catcalls here, you could drop in on John Wilkins's blog Evolving Thoughts.

I'm absolutely convinced that God or any such super natural thing doesn't exist. But I can't see anything wrong with people using God for a spiritual high as long as they are convinced that God doesn't exist.

There are just too many things wrong with this to dissect at length, but...

First off, they're not going to get a spiritual high if they don't believe "god" exists. The placebo effect doesn't work if you know it's a placebo. So what you'll really get is people smoking that old-time religion crack-pipe and pretending. The problem with belief is that - if you really believe it, you're convinced that you're right about something that is both incredibly important and utterly imaginary - to the point where it certainly will influence how you spend your time, your money, and your politics. The fundamentalist whack-job in chief (George Bush) is a good example of how your "inner faith" can manifest itself outwardly in terms of a ruined economy, hundreds of thousands of dead, and a government that spent $400 million last year as part of its "faith based initiatives" to promote abstinence as an alternative to teaching safe sex.

Even though getting drunk is a personal experience (my Jack Daniels does not affect your metabolism) it's illegal for me to drink and drive because my metabolism and my suburban share the road with you and others. Getting high off religion doesn't mean they're going to just sit on the couch and daydream about woo-woo: religion addicts do the metaphysical equivalent of drinking and driving only in their case it involves explosions, genocide, and absolutely bizzare decisions based on contradictory "facts"

Imagine if there was a recreational drug that always drove its users insane over time. It would be illegal. Unlike that drug, however, religion is "respected" and tacitly promoted as an alternative to reality.

Neat, huh?

Imagine if there was a recreational drug that always drove its users insane over time. It would be illegal.

No, it would be added to the drinking water.

I'd be cautious going down that route, since the same can be said for every dollar spent on Ben and Jerry's, and every hour spend playing Halo 3.

Very true, but believers of religions where 'love' and 'charity' are part of the mission statement seem to skip over those parts too, yet they have a great sky fairy to obey. And what is worse is that the chuch/temple/mosque leaders encourage the flock to support the religious hierachy and turn away from good works. Believers still claim the moral high ground though.

Tulse writes:
(in response to: every kilogram of gold decorating the altar 'to glorify God' is money that could have been spent on famine relief, education, or contraception. Every hour spent praying is an hour not spent healing the sick or feeding the hungry.)

I'd be cautious going down that route, since the same can be said for every dollar spent on Ben and Jerry's, and every hour spend playing Halo 3.

That's absurd. Eating Ben and Jerrys (while playing Halo 3, drunk on Jack Daniels - if I may add) is a real pleasure in the here and now. I may regret it tomorrow but it's something that actually does give me a great deal of short-term happiness. We could argue about whether it's "shallow" or "deep" happiness, but - well - come over here and join me on my couch some friday night and we can have that argument in person with Jack Daniel as moderator.

But does "god" get pleasure from having gold in his churches? Why would he? He can allegedly make all the gold he wants. It would be a small trick for "god" to cover the surface of the planet with solid gold churches - or Xboxes - or oceans of Jack Daniels. How can "god" possibly get pleasure out of doing something that is as easy to him as breathing?

What's important to recognize about "god" and his love of gold, cadillacs, and virgins is that surprisingly many of "god's" "desires" equate to temporal power, physical comfort, or sexual access in the here-and-now for his favored servants

If "god" wanted Oral Roberts to have a satellite transmitter and a cadillac he could have sent one of this angels down to install a satellite dish in Robert's teeth, powerful enough to blanket the entire planet's electromagnetic spectrum. If "god" wanted Oral Roberts to have luxury transportation, he could have sent an angel to fly Roberts around instead of forcing him to use that crappy learjet.

Isn't it interesting that "god" always wants wealth and power - two things that, theoretically "god" has ALL of???

Religiotards never seem to figure this out. But then that's because they're where the gold, cadillacs and virgins come from. And their nasty "god" won't just turn the crank on the virgin machine and whip old preacher up a few dozen - he needs your daughters because, well, they're real.

Please.

Can I simply say that I only piped up to say that I thought there were other debates more worthy of discussion than the MT one. I had clearly mis-judged the depth of feeling on the subject on that score which caused the large number of responses to my initial post.

In trying to respond to the (on my part) unexpected range of responses I tried to answer them all - in many cases "shooting from the hip". Consequently the answers weren't necessarily as well-thought-out as I'd have liked them to have been.

I didn't introduce side issues (such as Henry VIII) - others brought them into the fray and I responded to them.

I didn't expect the level of anger in the responses I sometimes received. OK I may have deserved some of them - particularly if I jibed back at somebody jibing me - but I don't think I deserved all of them. One or two people have commented that I got a bit of a mauling. For a first-time poster on this blog, it was somewhat surprising, to say the least. I wonder if other people will refrain from posting anything when they see the responses I received.

I've been active on other blogs - Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, for example, and I've always tried to be fair and open-minded - and received fair respnses in return. I suspect that last statement will fetch some comments about how it's impossible to be open-minded if I believe in any form of faith system. It's interesting that I've never received anything like the response I got here on any other blog. We've not always agreed on things, but it has never got to the stage it got to last night.

I really just want to listen and learn. I said I wasn't out to convert anyone but some seem to have taken my presence as a chance to vent their spleens regarding the problems of Christianity.

That's all. If any of my comments did offend anyone then I apologize.

Now she's trying to apologize for the social slight she thinks we think she offered.

You just don't get it, do you, Selina?

Selina writes:
I didn't expect the level of anger in the responses I sometimes received.

Speaking for myself, it wasn't anger. It was contempt with a heavy dose of ridicule. That's a whole different vibe.

It's pointless to school you about intellectual honesty, apparently, since you're obviously faith-addled to the point where you don't understand the concept. Attempting to claim that the "Henry VIII" thread was a side-track is disingenous. I made a joke about the ludicrous circumstances surrounding the foundation of the anglican church and YOU attempted to lead the discussion into the weeds by showing how knowledgeable you are regarding the history of some parallel time-travel novel England.

Typical of one of the faithful: your failings are ours. Your intellectual dishonesty gets pushed on us. Your inability to reason doesn't count because we weren't nice to you.

Listen - I'll be the first to speak courteously and respectfully to you. Once you stop spouting idiocy. I'll be happy to engage in "scientific debate" with you, once you bring some kind of scientific evidence (a good thought-experiment would be acceptable) to the table.

Until then, if you don't like being laughed at, stop being so f*cking laughable.

those three acknowledged children by three separate wives! That shows the claim of just two wives to be a lie. It's also highly likely that Henry was lying about the other wives. The ceremonies are well-documented and the sex almost certainly happened. It's just that he was powerful enough to make his lies be the official version (though still not as far as the Pope and many other people at the time were concerned).

This is true. You have a ceremony and sign a contractyour married. The RCC has a pretty much indefensible position theologically so they try to skirt around it to maintain face. The sex is beside the point. All that matters is the ceremony and the contract.

Caledonian.

No. I don't get it. I'm trying to.

Marcus.

Not so much a thought-experiment, but an actual one was being debated on Bad Astronomy recently in which three groups of patients who had undergone major heart surgery were the subjects. One goup were told they were being prayed for and weren't. One group were told they weren't being prayed for but were. The third group were told they were being prayed for and were. This used a sample of 2000 patients in six hospitals.

The number of patients who suffered complications in the three groups was tallied. In the case of the first two groups approximately 50% suffered complications. In the case of the group who were told they were being prayed for and were (who Christians would expect to fare better) the results were that almost 60% suffered complications. This would seem to strike at the heart of prayer.

It would be interesting to see if this was repeated in similar tests (after all, at the heart of good science is repeatability and consistency of results).

It seems surprising that they fared so badly. If prayer was totally nonsensical then one would have thought that the results should be broadly the same in all three groups.

What is your take on this? Why did they do so much worse?

every kilogram of gold decorating the altar 'to glorify God' is money that could have been spent on famine relief, education, or contraception.
Every hour spent praying is an hour not spent healing the sick or feeding the hungry.

I'd be cautious going down that route, since the same can be said for every dollar spent on Ben and Jerry's, and every hour spend playing Halo 3.

Ahh. But herein lies a difference. People eating Ben and Jerry's while playing Halo3 do not think (unless they are very peculiar people indeed) that what they are doing is for the betterment of society, whereas people giving money to religious causes usually do. Same goes for praying - it is done to help those being prayed for. That time and money, already dedicated to "helping people", could also be spent in vastly more profitable ways. Religion is such appalling waste of human effort and kindness it continually pisses me off!

In the specific case of donations to mother Teresa, I suspect most of those giving money were doing so for the express purpose of helping the poor of Calcutta. AFAIK, very little (if truly any) money went to actually making their lives better, and quite a lot to "decorating the altar".

Marcus:

Eating Ben and Jerrys (while playing Halo 3, drunk on Jack Daniels - if I may add) is a real pleasure in the here and now. [...] But does "god" get pleasure from having gold in his churches?

I wasn't talking about "god", but about the people who put gold on altars and pray. And many of those folks do get enjoyment/fullfilment/sense of purpose/peace from those actions. That seems irrelevant to my point, however, which was the pretty minor observation that taking the religious to task for actions that don't directly help the poor is a tricky road unless one is either a) also willing to condemn purely secular pursuits that are similarly ineffective at poverty relief, or b) accusing the religious of hypocrisy. (And as for the latter, there are plenty of religions, especially Protestant ones, that de-emphasize "good works" and helping the less fortunate, and in some cases actually associate material wealth with God's favour.)

Tulse writes:
I wasn't talking about "god", but about the people who put gold on altars and pray. And many of those folks do get enjoyment/fullfilment/sense of purpose/peace from those actions.

Ah, yeah. I can't argue with that. As long as it doesn't affect me. If it's going to affect me (either directly or through diversion of efforts) then it's my problem. But, hey, if someone wants to meditate or pray or whatever - good for them. The "reason" behind what they're doing may be stupid, but they're not my problem.

Selina writes:
What is your take on this? Why did they do so much worse?

Weren't you the one who was asking earlier "what does all this have to do with Mother Theresa?" Um... What does the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of prayer have to do with...

Prayer is a fun topic I'd be happy to unzip and whizz all over but I'm not going to let this thread get hijacked back into the weeds... Say, when did "God save the king" come into play? Did it help Henry VIII?? Oh... no, here we go again. ;)

In this respect, it is little different to the reception an atheist or agnostic would face if posting to a creationist blog.

No, it's very different. We are pro truth while they (and she) are pro lies and falsehoods (they often don't even care enough to distinguish the difference). We are addressing significant points with evidence and logic. They pick on trivia (in order to avoid the significant points) using fantasy (eg the ad hominem attack on me) and emotionality (eg pretending to be persecuted and offended etc).

"I had clearly mis-judged the depth of feeling on the subject on that score which caused the large number of responses to my initial post."

Don't play the innocent, poor me game. You don't understand your own depth of feeling about your woo. You can't defend your faith and it bothers you to the point of changing the subject, spouting nonsense and complaining of bad language and poor treatment. This, to me, indicates defensive feelings on your part. That's where the strong feelings are. I think a strong attack on your weak arguments are not evidence of strong feelings by the attackers.

"I really just want to listen and learn."

No you don't. You keep repeating the same reasoning errors and you fail to admit it when you are shown to be wrong.

"If any of my comments did offend anyone then I apologize."

You didn't offend as much as disappoint so no need to apologize. But thanks for the attempt. I learned a lot from Brian, Marcus and others and would like to thank them too.

In this respect, it is little different to the reception an atheist or agnostic would face if posting to a creationist blog.

I guess if the atheist's response to the first follow up was to say, "Darwin's only been married once. How many Christians can say that?" I guess you might have a point.

But, generally, atheists seem pretty cool with tolerating Christians on teh internets. I don't know about creationist blogs, but most Christian blogs quickly ban atheists who politely ask questions. Faith is too fragile to expose to reason.

Selina wrote:

If prayer was totally nonsensical then one would have thought that the results should be broadly the same in all three groups.
What is your take on this? Why did they do so much worse?

I'm trying to figure out the blog equivalent of staring at you in slack-jawed amazement until you figure out the answer on your own.

Nice attempt to move the discussion to yet another topic, by the way. You are a slippery thing.

Ah.. growing up Protestant, I never realized that ... Catholics believe the Virgin Mary was still "virgin" after delivering a child? That the hymen repaired itself?

What is it with Christians in general and their *obsession* with sex? They're worse than any teen I ever knew!

Why can't they spend more time working on being more compassionate to those in need? Or taking care of the environment? Or yelling at the U.S. government for killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis?

Religion is just an tool to justify yourself.

Selina, I'm not sure if you took the time to read all the other posts written after you retired for sleep, but at #164 I pointed out the very fact you've mentioned. That by the way isn't the only study on prayer. But that particular one does have improtance because it doesn't simply show that prayer is inefective, thus stacking evidence against the idea of a prayer answering god, it also suggets that believing is bad for your health.

In short, a god who answers prayers doesn't exist, as the claim has been tested and failed, as all amputees would agree.

#185 Selina: "What is your take on this? Why did they do so much worse?"

In two words antiplacebo effect. It's basically the same mechanism that's employed in voodoo (provided the victim believes in curses, then curses work) and in the old dry-mouth test for the guilty (if you are innocent, then you produce saliva).

I suspect that the antiplacebo effect is more powerful than the placebo effect-it's well documented that stress can adversely affect health.

Speaking of stress, even though I am a strong atheist, I give you credit for courage in continuing to comment here despite a reception that does no credit to atheism.

One of the complaints that atheists justifiably level at religionists concerns fallacious ad hominem attacks in lieu of logic. How can we justify behavior that is equally insulting of the person and not confined to the fact that atheism is firmly founded in fact and logic? Atheism is easy to defend simply by resort to rationality. I concede that some religionists do demonstrate that the messenger is also a problem, but I don't think that we can fairly say this of Selina's behavior.

Finally read through most of the thread above.
What is with the arrogant aggression from SEF and Marcus?
Treating all Christians with the same 2x4 seems profoundly unfair and indiscriminate. How easy it is to make a wide-brush judgment and use it on everyone.

Save your energy for someone who bites back, rather than Selina's continued efforts to address all these commentors.

I'm an atheist, but I grew up Christian, and my family are all Korean conservative Christians (You guys meet this brand of Christians before? Very interesting group.). There are some very good people who try to make their lives a positive, benign influence, and try to fit religion into their world view.

At the very least, they deserve a bit more respect than those that blindly allow religion to hand over a pre-packaged world view to them.

Marcus: obscenities and expletives don't bother me (I'm a New Yorker), but I'd say that the tone of your response is completely out of proportion to your responder. Do you yell at *everybody* that irks you in the least way? It makes me think less of you, regardless of the rightness of either person's position, in the way that I felt pity and a sense of revulsion for Hussein's execution.

He was a bastard, but, damn, his executioners made him look quite dignified by comparison.

No doubt I'll get cussed out, too. Heh. Bring it on. I'm leaving lab, soon, anyway, and enjoy the rest of my probably Godless but sunny weekend. I hope the rest of you do the same.

hmm, interesting discussion. my 2 cents.

1. Did Mother Teresa consider her work to be religious in nature and hence would have been happy to be recognized and 'used' by the Church?

I think she was ok with being 'used' by the Church. There, I solved the question of Sainthood!!

2. Should the Church be attacked for making more morons out of people by this 'miracles' crap?

Absolutely. But I think we are being a bit unfair to MT in the process.

Treating all Christians with the same 2x4 seems profoundly unfair and indiscriminate.

For you to imply that that's what I (and others) do is profoundly unfair and indiscriminate of you - being quite unevidenced and, in my case, untrue. Some Christians are very definitely more incompetent and/or dishonest than other Christians and I treat individual examples of them accordingly. Ditto anyone else, regardless of religion or lack of any.

If anyone is struggling to think of a contrasting example they've seen around here (since they know nothing about the real lives of most of the posters here), try a certain SH (I'm leaving the full identity concealed as a test of the powers of observation of anyone else who might have been imagining that Inky had a valid point). The only people against whom your accusation could fairly be levelled would have to be shown to have treated SH the same way as Selina and without regard to the comparative merit of their posts.

Trying to bring this discussion back to the central point of dispute and not get sidetracked into yet another peripheral issue (placebos, Henry VIII, prayer studies, etc.)....

Selina, you really haven't addressed the basic problems with your religious beliefs that I and others have described. Again I ask, if faith is no more reliable a guide to truth than hoping or guessing, why do you believe on faith? You say you see no contradiction between science and religion, because you're not a young-earth creationist. But the contradiction we have described is more basic than that. It's the contradiction between belief based on evidence and reason vs. belief based on faith. Do you have a response? If you're not justified in holding beliefs about astronomical phenomena on faith in your scientific work, why are you justified in holding beliefs about the will of God on faith?

Inkadu: I wasn't trying to steer the conversation anywhere. I was asked to put forward a thought experiment. OK, I couldn't come up with one I'll admit, but I hoped to demonstrate that I do question in the light of evidence. That was the reason I posed the question.

It still doesn't answer why they were so much worse off. As I said, if prayer has a totally nil effect, then it would seem that all three groups should have come out similarly. Certainly if there's a placebo or antiplacebo effect then I would have expected the two groups who were told they were being prayed for to come out the same.

The fact that the group that actually were told thy were prayed for and were prayed for came out so much worse seems odd. (I'm not disputing the results by the way, just struggling to work out why the results should have come out the way they did.)

Michael suggested that prayer is actually bad for your health. Again, this wouldn't explain why the group who were told they weren't being prayed for (though actually were) scored so much better. Unless, of, course, the effects are cumulative - i.e. you need to be told you are being prayed for and actually be prayed for in order that the results come out so bad.

Salient. Thank you for that. I know I've hit a few raw nerves. I really didn't mean to. I would just like to participate in the debate.

On a slightly unrelated note, doesn't praying to a saint or angel constitute polytheism?

Nooooooooo... as long as you're only asking the angel to ask God to do stuff. Saints are advocates. I've never understood what that's supposed to be good for, because, after all, you can pray to God directly according to Catholic dogma, too.

the pretence of believing that a funny-looking guy in a hat can be voted into infallibility

Nooooooooo... the voting is done by the Holy Spirit, who inspires the cardinals (...or anyway a majority of them...)into making the right choice.

Catholic theology has gone very far towards being completely unfalsifiable and internally consistent.

Because, if so, you are missing out on the real arguments that are tearing the church apart - i.e. women priests and gay bishops.

What is really tearing the Catholic Church apart, in Europe anyway, is the chronic and steadily increasing lack of priests. For ineffable reasons, God has seen it fit to call fewer and fewer men into priesthood. Plenty of people believe that allowing priests to marry would solve much of that problem, and allowing women into priesthood would solve the rest of it. But very few believe the church will change two of its dogmata for pragmatic reasons anytime soon. Not even those who point out that there are already married Catholic priests (Greek Catholic ones, and those who have had a vocation after having married).

Though, actually... "tearing apart" is not a good choice of words. There won't be a schism. People will just leave the church faster than new members are born or immigrate -- without even necessarily giving up any of their faith.

I think that Yasir Arafat was far worse.

I got the impression he was being rewarded for no longer being a terrorist. That, IMHO, is not a bad idea.

Karl Popper, who basically said that anything that can be disproven, and fails to be disproven, is true.

In practice, that doesn't mean "is true", but "can be considered true as long as it isn't disproven and if it's the most parsimonious option of all those that haven't been disproven but can be".

Sorry if I didn't meet the grade. As I said, 4:07 in the morning isn't my best time. And a single tank can't defend on all fronts at the same time.

Could have done a better job. Will try harder next time.

For the sake of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't!!! Thinking coherently and then commenting on blogs about it at that time of the night is simply impossible. I know, I've tried several times -- after 1 to 2 at night, it simply stops working. Wait for the next day. Please.

If you go to http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
you'll see what I assume is the Church's version of its history, and it's pretty obviously an attempt to define the Anglican church separately from the Roman church, and does so in funadamentally dishonest ways.

The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg

Wittenberg. That's not pronounced the same, and it means "mountain" rather than "mediaeval castle". A bit embarrassing for that website to get that wrong.

I don't know what drives you. What is it that illuminates you. A sports team. An individual. A state. A nation.

I don't understand. Perhaps that's because I'm not a fan of any sports team. "Asportual male" and all. :-|

I don't need to resort to foul language to make a point. I use foul language because it amuses me, and it's a way of providing a certain earthy tone to my postings. I'm sorry you don't f*cking like it. I'm actually capable of being much more vicious and hurtful while remaining utterly polite - can you trust me on that point without a demonstration? I actually prefer to simply be f*cking aggressive, if that's OK with you.

LOL! Goes into my quote collection. :-)

That's why sport is so important, sport is war done small and safe, we can gather and hate the lunatics without destroying ourselves.

Ephraim Kishon on the greatness of football (soccer for you Emurikuns):

"In football you can get rid of most of the aggression you build up in football."

People uneedingly died and suffered directly because of MT. Her idealized state does nothing to resolve that. Can you see anything wrong with that?

Yep. 100% right. Lets put it another way. What would happen if the Republican party, say 5-10 years from now, or after George Bush's death, managed to get Congress to build a statue next to the Lincoln memorial, which depicted Bush as the greatest president we ever had, carefully only including things he sort of maybe did right, and specifically excluding any mention of anything he did wrong, including blatantly lying about his being in charge when we invaded Iraq. Would it *still* not matter because its only a "idealized" version of him?

The very idea is absurd.

Salina, the simple answer to your question is that the psychology of the human mind is much more complex than a simple nil hypothesis. Much the same as the placebo effect. The placebo should render no difference, but what people believe effects them to a certain degree.

In short, the study suggests (not me) that the belief that you are being prayed for has a negative effect on recovery. Possibly, the participants believe that they need to do less in order to get better and thus are more susceptible to regression.

The take home message is that a prayer answering god is being scientifically disproven.

At the beginning of my way too long post, I wrote:

"I've never understood what that's supposed to be good for, because, after all, you can pray to God directly according to Catholic dogma, too."

Actually, I think I do. In lots of baroque churches, there are paintings of St Mary taking lots of people under her blue coat and protecting them from God's wrath.

The "God is Love" and "Justice exists only in hell -- in heaven there's mercy" business seems to have become a common interpretation only very recently.

Selina #200 "Again, this wouldn't explain why the group who were told they weren't being prayed for (though actually were) scored so much better."

It's related to expectations, I think. If you told me that you were praying for me postsurgery, I'd have no worries either way, but if I were a believer I might think, "Uh Oh, I must be sicker than I thought!" and my adrenal gland might pump out more cardiac stimulant (adrenalin).

Health is probably more adversely affected by negative expectations than by placebo. If you found a painful lump in your breast and your friendly family doctor told you that cancerous masses are not painful, then you would sleep better than if your friend told you of her friend who had died of breast cancer even though the original lump was not painful.

Its not that this sleeplessness and anxiety would convert your fibrocystic breast disease into cancer, but it is the case that the study was performed on cardiac patients and that stress does affect the heart. I am sure that the religious group that undertook the study had no idea that their study would adversely impact the study participants in this way, though they presumably expected that the not-prayed-for group would fare a little worse. This is not malpractice since the not-prayed-fors might not otherwise have received prayer-treatment.

Kagehi #202 "only including things he sort of maybe did right"

Are there any?

Ah, yes salient, that seems to be a much better hypothesis than mine. Did the study suggest that particular angle? I've heard it somewhere before and I'm wondering if that's it.

Michael #207 "Did the study suggest that particular angle?"

I have read of the study, but have not read the study. I'm a physician, so I'm basing my explanation on what I know of medical science (physiology and psychology).

When I worked in oncology, I frequently saw patients with hematological cancers (lymphomas, leukemias) suffer relapses when their lives were particularly stressful. This observation is not merely anecdotal but has, according to the staffwoman on that service, been confirmed in epidemiological studies. The observation is backed up by lab studies that indicate that leukocytes alter morphologically when the patient is stressed, which finding supports the observation that stress heightens susceptibility to infection.

As to the cardiac patients, we probably all know of flight or fight hormones and that stress can precipitate cardiac events. It would have been particularly interesting if they'd followed serum cortisol levels in all the groups to monitor stress.

I am often more convinced by unexpected findings. As an atheist, I would have expected that prayer would not work, but the paradoxical finding of negative impact of prayer invites explanation. There might be a better explanation, but I think that mine fits what we know of medicine and human psychology.

I agree that the evidence would seem to point in that direction. If only now people would come to grips with the studies findings. It seems to rebuttle christianity as a whole. The rationalization ability of our species is constantly amazing.

Do you yell at *everybody* that irks you in the least way?

Nope. Only when it amuses me to do so. Scroll back through some of my other responses and you'll notice I can be quite moderate and courteous. Generally I only yell at f*ckwits.

What's it gonna be?

Wow! It looks like everyone went charging after the "effectiveness of prayer" troll!!!

Nice job. :)

Prayer is a ridiculous concept that can be easily dismissed with a swat of the hand. Consider: millions of Britons (and some Australians!) praying God Save The {King|Queen} every day since 1600 AD.* That's 400-odd years. During which time, the Britons have lost - um... Well, Queen Elizabeth II is still alive but "god" sure as hell didn't "save" any of the others.

Score it as:
Prayer: 0
Death: 18 (Death scores with: Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I**, Charles II, James II, William III, Mary II, Anne, George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI)

So there you have it. The longest-running experiment on the effectiveness of prayer. With millions of participants - you'd think one of them would have had "god"s ear -and a 0% success rate.

If you believe in prayer, start praying "pl3aze g0ht make teh st00pid awa!" Maybe that'll work. Not.

mjr.
----

(* The Wikipedia entry for the phrase "God Save The King" is fascinating. Apparently one possible origin of the phrase was that it was penned by Lully as a prayer for healing Louis XIV of France's anal fistula!)
(**"God" really outdid himself "saving" Charles I)

But Marcus you don't know how many people secretly prayed for the death of the king/queen. We know that English politics were very tumultuous so we can be certain a number of people were not happy with their king/queen at the time. So maybe the problem isn't that the prayer didn't work it's just that all the different believers balanced each other out. /snark

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.

Our Lady of Perpetual Cranberry Juice and Flomax.

In my long and varied experience with kidney stones, I have to say that it does seem like a miracle when they pass. But I'm usually back to rationality within 24 hours. My most reverent feelings are toward the nurse who administers "four of morphine."

Marcus, "save" to the Christians doesn't mean to save one's life. They have an idea of "salvation" that involves their belief in the persistence of consciousness after death. Hard to believe, I know; but there it is.

On a slightly unrelated note, doesn't praying to a saint or angel constitute polytheism?

Nooooooooo... as long as you're only asking the angel to ask God to do stuff. Saints are advocates. I've never understood what that's supposed to be good for, because, after all, you can pray to God directly according to Catholic dogma, too.

the pretence of believing that a funny-looking guy in a hat can be voted into infallibility

Nooooooooo... the voting is done by the Holy Spirit, who inspires the cardinals (...or anyway a majority of them...)into making the right choice.

Catholic theology has gone very far towards being completely unfalsifiable and internally consistent.

Because, if so, you are missing out on the real arguments that are tearing the church apart - i.e. women priests and gay bishops.

What is really tearing the Catholic Church apart, in Europe anyway, is the chronic and steadily increasing lack of priests. For ineffable reasons, God has seen it fit to call fewer and fewer men into priesthood. Plenty of people believe that allowing priests to marry would solve much of that problem, and allowing women into priesthood would solve the rest of it. But very few believe the church will change two of its dogmata for pragmatic reasons anytime soon. Not even those who point out that there are already married Catholic priests (Greek Catholic ones, and those who have had a vocation after having married).

Though, actually... "tearing apart" is not a good choice of words. There won't be a schism. People will just leave the church faster than new members are born or immigrate -- without even necessarily giving up any of their faith.

I think that Yasir Arafat was far worse.

I got the impression he was being rewarded for no longer being a terrorist. That, IMHO, is not a bad idea.

Karl Popper, who basically said that anything that can be disproven, and fails to be disproven, is true.

In practice, that doesn't mean "is true", but "can be considered true as long as it isn't disproven and if it's the most parsimonious option of all those that haven't been disproven but can be".

Sorry if I didn't meet the grade. As I said, 4:07 in the morning isn't my best time. And a single tank can't defend on all fronts at the same time.

Could have done a better job. Will try harder next time.

For the sake of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't!!! Thinking coherently and then commenting on blogs about it at that time of the night is simply impossible. I know, I've tried several times -- after 1 to 2 at night, it simply stops working. Wait for the next day. Please.

If you go to http://www.anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
you'll see what I assume is the Church's version of its history, and it's pretty obviously an attempt to define the Anglican church separately from the Roman church, and does so in funadamentally dishonest ways.

The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg

Wittenberg. That's not pronounced the same, and it means "mountain" rather than "mediaeval castle". A bit embarrassing for that website to get that wrong.

I don't know what drives you. What is it that illuminates you. A sports team. An individual. A state. A nation.

I don't understand. Perhaps that's because I'm not a fan of any sports team. "Asportual male" and all. :-|

I don't need to resort to foul language to make a point. I use foul language because it amuses me, and it's a way of providing a certain earthy tone to my postings. I'm sorry you don't f*cking like it. I'm actually capable of being much more vicious and hurtful while remaining utterly polite - can you trust me on that point without a demonstration? I actually prefer to simply be f*cking aggressive, if that's OK with you.

LOL! Goes into my quote collection. :-)

That's why sport is so important, sport is war done small and safe, we can gather and hate the lunatics without destroying ourselves.

Ephraim Kishon on the greatness of football (soccer for you Emurikuns):

"In football you can get rid of most of the aggression you build up in football."

At the beginning of my way too long post, I wrote:

"I've never understood what that's supposed to be good for, because, after all, you can pray to God directly according to Catholic dogma, too."

Actually, I think I do. In lots of baroque churches, there are paintings of St Mary taking lots of people under her blue coat and protecting them from God's wrath.

The "God is Love" and "Justice exists only in hell -- in heaven there's mercy" business seems to have become a common interpretation only very recently.