Look skyward
December 3, 2009 1:40 AM Subscribe
Some 10,000 people descended on the Knock Shrine a few months ago to see a Marian Apparition, promised by "clairvoyant" Joe Coleman to appear in the sun.
Mary Kenny of the Irish Independent asks "What harm if people derive comfort from what they believe to be a spiritual experience?" while an Irish opthalmic surgeon now reports that he has treated no fewer than five people already, claiming it "monstrous" to mislead people into thinking that altered vision and effects, such as seeing the sun dance, were a religious apparition when they were classic symptoms of solar retinopathy.
Some have suffered as much as 50% vision loss. With future apparitions predicted, the local Catholic archbishop stepped in, discrediting the apparition and warning against future visits. Discover Magazine weighs in as well: "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up."
Some have suffered as much as 50% vision loss. With future apparitions predicted, the local Catholic archbishop stepped in, discrediting the apparition and warning against future visits. Discover Magazine weighs in as well: "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up."
"Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up be the ones in charge of it."
pardon the FTFY, but as I grow older I see Belief that "leads to obvious physical or mental harm" as more and more the standard.
also, eponysterical...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:04 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
pardon the FTFY, but as I grow older I see Belief that "leads to obvious physical or mental harm" as more and more the standard.
also, eponysterical...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:04 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I haven't listened to this week's Geologic Podcast. Has anyone notified George Hrab?
posted by crataegus at 2:30 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by crataegus at 2:30 AM on December 3, 2009
Hallelujah, I could see but now I'm blind...
What a headline in the Irish Indie. You could sub all your life to write just one as good as that
posted by MinPin at 2:59 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
What a headline in the Irish Indie. You could sub all your life to write just one as good as that
posted by MinPin at 2:59 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up.
I find this to be a strange (but popular) point of view. Religious beliefs are all cut from the same cloth - the same credulousness that leads one to believe that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago is the same credulousness that leads one to look at the sun and go blind. If you have philosophy that says "The only possible God is one who will not ask me to harm myself," then you've eliminated many possibilities for how God acts, a priori, with no justification other than you think it's bad that people get hurt. Well, there's no reason why any God should buy your particular morality.
It seems to me that if you buy into the idea of faith and believing in the supernatural, you should be open to anything. So saying, "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to physical harm..." that's just weird. Belief was the problem in the first place. You can't accept belief and faith and then cry foul when it leads to people getting hurt. If you have a problem with people believing stupid things and getting hurt, you should criticize the process that led them to that belief, not the belief itself. Otherwise, you're just playing unprincipled whack-a-mole with people's faith.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 3:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I find this to be a strange (but popular) point of view. Religious beliefs are all cut from the same cloth - the same credulousness that leads one to believe that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago is the same credulousness that leads one to look at the sun and go blind. If you have philosophy that says "The only possible God is one who will not ask me to harm myself," then you've eliminated many possibilities for how God acts, a priori, with no justification other than you think it's bad that people get hurt. Well, there's no reason why any God should buy your particular morality.
It seems to me that if you buy into the idea of faith and believing in the supernatural, you should be open to anything. So saying, "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to physical harm..." that's just weird. Belief was the problem in the first place. You can't accept belief and faith and then cry foul when it leads to people getting hurt. If you have a problem with people believing stupid things and getting hurt, you should criticize the process that led them to that belief, not the belief itself. Otherwise, you're just playing unprincipled whack-a-mole with people's faith.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 3:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Sure, some people went blind. But hundreds of others were revved up like deuces, other runners in the night! This is the great power of religion that the unpleasin', sneezin' and wheezin' Ditchkinses of the world will never understand.
posted by No-sword at 3:40 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by No-sword at 3:40 AM on December 3, 2009
Philosopher Dirtbike: “If you have a problem with people believing stupid things and getting hurt, you should criticize the process that led them to that belief, not the belief itself. Otherwise, you're just playing unprincipled whack-a-mole with people's faith.”
One of the odd things about life is that the processes that lead to certain beliefs seem to have little to do with whether those beliefs are correct or not. Specifically, it sounds distinctly as though you mean to imply that religious faith is all of the same tenor, that of unquestioning acceptance; whereas it's clear at least from the statements of all of the significant founders and teachers in Christianity that that faith, for example, sees itself as limited to things which cannot be verified or scientifically investigated, and useless for trying to determine the truth about, for example, the laws that govern the universe. In other words, Christianity states upfront that it can't say anything about the causes and effects we observe in the natural world, but only concerns that about which there can be no scientific investigation. So that, even if you could find grounds to criticize the method by which Christians and other religious people arrive at their beliefs about uninvestigable things, there's no way you could offer any better way for them to decide what to believe about those things.
And if it's obvious and demonstrable that the stupid things that people believe are untrue, why can't we respectably point out in a direct way that those stupid beliefs are false without being afraid of contradicting ourselves?
In Plato's dialogue The Laws, a conversation between three old men trying to decide the best ways to organize a society, there's a bit where the Athenian Stranger, an inquisitive Socrates-like fellow who conducts the discussion, comes to the question of what to do with witches, fortune-tellers, and other hucksters who are apparently using signs and symbols to deceive people, sometimes for money and sometimes simply for fame or popular adulation. The Athenian Stranger makes an interesting comment at this point; he says: isn't it interesting, however, and very furthermore annoying, that it seems to be utterly impossible to prove these kinds of people wrong? Isn't it a bit disturbing, in this case, how utterly futile it seems to try to build a rational argument that the face of Mary did not appear in the sun above County Mustard in Ireland - even though all of us know that it's pure nonsense, isn't it annoying that we can't really prove it? I think that was a good point; maybe even one of the sharpest statements of an insight that runs all through Plato.
It didn't matter anyway, in the end. The Athenian Stranger decided to banish the Joe Colemans of the world from the city. Frankly, I think that was the right move.
posted by koeselitz at 4:21 AM on December 3, 2009 [12 favorites]
One of the odd things about life is that the processes that lead to certain beliefs seem to have little to do with whether those beliefs are correct or not. Specifically, it sounds distinctly as though you mean to imply that religious faith is all of the same tenor, that of unquestioning acceptance; whereas it's clear at least from the statements of all of the significant founders and teachers in Christianity that that faith, for example, sees itself as limited to things which cannot be verified or scientifically investigated, and useless for trying to determine the truth about, for example, the laws that govern the universe. In other words, Christianity states upfront that it can't say anything about the causes and effects we observe in the natural world, but only concerns that about which there can be no scientific investigation. So that, even if you could find grounds to criticize the method by which Christians and other religious people arrive at their beliefs about uninvestigable things, there's no way you could offer any better way for them to decide what to believe about those things.
And if it's obvious and demonstrable that the stupid things that people believe are untrue, why can't we respectably point out in a direct way that those stupid beliefs are false without being afraid of contradicting ourselves?
In Plato's dialogue The Laws, a conversation between three old men trying to decide the best ways to organize a society, there's a bit where the Athenian Stranger, an inquisitive Socrates-like fellow who conducts the discussion, comes to the question of what to do with witches, fortune-tellers, and other hucksters who are apparently using signs and symbols to deceive people, sometimes for money and sometimes simply for fame or popular adulation. The Athenian Stranger makes an interesting comment at this point; he says: isn't it interesting, however, and very furthermore annoying, that it seems to be utterly impossible to prove these kinds of people wrong? Isn't it a bit disturbing, in this case, how utterly futile it seems to try to build a rational argument that the face of Mary did not appear in the sun above County Mustard in Ireland - even though all of us know that it's pure nonsense, isn't it annoying that we can't really prove it? I think that was a good point; maybe even one of the sharpest statements of an insight that runs all through Plato.
It didn't matter anyway, in the end. The Athenian Stranger decided to banish the Joe Colemans of the world from the city. Frankly, I think that was the right move.
posted by koeselitz at 4:21 AM on December 3, 2009 [12 favorites]
In the end, the best thing to do would probably be to pick a pithy verse out of the Bible that seems to say this is hogwash - I seem to remember some stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy about false prophets and signs or some such - and have some popular Irish clergyman recite that verse a dozen times in a denunciation of this supposed miracle. People never change, and a few words yanked from the scripture pages usually seems to do the trick better than anything else as far as convincing them of things goes.
posted by koeselitz at 4:27 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by koeselitz at 4:27 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also Recently: “Residents attempt to save tree stump they say depicts Our Lady”
Sometimes I truly despair at this country...
posted by nfg at 4:52 AM on December 3, 2009
Sometimes I truly despair at this country...
posted by nfg at 4:52 AM on December 3, 2009
Fr.Ted - The Mud Angel
This video is only available on Craggy Island, due to copyright restrictions.
Feck!
posted by GeckoDundee at 4:54 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
This video is only available on Craggy Island, due to copyright restrictions.
Feck!
posted by GeckoDundee at 4:54 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
This would be cool if it wasn't for the blinding bit. If only there were some phenomenon that would mute them all instead.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:00 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by bashos_frog at 5:00 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
have some popular Irish clergyman recite...
lol
posted by Elmore at 5:01 AM on December 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
lol
posted by Elmore at 5:01 AM on December 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
If only there were some phenomenon that would mute them all instead.
Or at least stop them from keeping Fianna Fail in government.
posted by Elmore at 5:03 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Or at least stop them from keeping Fianna Fail in government.
posted by Elmore at 5:03 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
What a strange and enfeebled God some people believe in; far from omnipotent, he struggles to send obscure messages through any arbitrary chink in reality he can briefly get a grip on.
posted by Phanx at 5:19 AM on December 3, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 5:19 AM on December 3, 2009 [11 favorites]
This... shit... is as far from what I'm trying hard to believe religion could possibly be at its best - as astrology is from astronomy. As lynching is from justice. As psychic surgery is from medicine. But it's awfully fucking stubborn, isn't it?
posted by fleetmouse at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by fleetmouse at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2009
Phanx: “What a strange and enfeebled God some people believe in; far from omnipotent, he struggles to send obscure messages through any arbitrary chink in reality he can briefly get a grip on.”
Or he could communicate if he wanted to, but he feels nothing but contempt for the stupidity of human creatures and delights in finding ever more ironical ways of torturing the weakest and simplest of them.
posted by koeselitz at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
Or he could communicate if he wanted to, but he feels nothing but contempt for the stupidity of human creatures and delights in finding ever more ironical ways of torturing the weakest and simplest of them.
posted by koeselitz at 5:26 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
There was a lot of funny coverage about this in the national media at the time. Apparently, lots more people turned up then were expected, and a carnival atmosphere developed. Cue outraged local devotees of the shrine hitting talk radio and complaining about Dublin youngsters "eatin' Tayto and drinkin' Coke not ten feet from the shrine!".
Very Father Ted. As was was the recent tree stump worship.
posted by stepheno at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2009
Very Father Ted. As was was the recent tree stump worship.
posted by stepheno at 5:33 AM on December 3, 2009
Damienmce: “Fr.Ted - The Mud Angel”
GeckoDundee: “‘This video is only available on Craggy Island, due to copyright restrictions.’ Feck!”
I had the same problem, GeckoDundee. Thankfully, there seems to be another copy of that video on Youtube over here. I highly recommend it; it's well worth watching.
posted by koeselitz at 5:35 AM on December 3, 2009
GeckoDundee: “‘This video is only available on Craggy Island, due to copyright restrictions.’ Feck!”
I had the same problem, GeckoDundee. Thankfully, there seems to be another copy of that video on Youtube over here. I highly recommend it; it's well worth watching.
posted by koeselitz at 5:35 AM on December 3, 2009
[Okay, that wasn't fair. Father Ted deserves better. So, though I can't find the Mud Angel, everybody should watch some. 1 2 3 4]
posted by koeselitz at 5:55 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 5:55 AM on December 3, 2009
Thanks, koeslitz. I wasn't quite ready for that. My kids will probably love it though.
posted by GeckoDundee at 6:08 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by GeckoDundee at 6:08 AM on December 3, 2009
Discover Magazine weighs in as well: "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up."
More Phil Plait weighing in than Discover Mag.
It seems to me that if you buy into the idea of faith and believing in the supernatural, you should be open to anything. So saying, "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to physical harm..." that's just weird. Belief was the problem in the first place. You can't accept belief and faith and then cry foul when it leads to people getting hurt.
He does go on to say:
"This is a real problem. When I write an article about a person who sees Jesus on a burnt iron or the Virgin Mary in a wood grain pattern, no matter how polite I am someone always accuses me of being arrogant, and asking how dare I make fun of someone’s belief?
This is why I dare do it. Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up. I have no problem with respecting people’s feelings, or the fact that their beliefs are an important part of their own identities — even if I don’t necessarily respect the belief itself — but when that leads to something like staring at the Sun, or not protecting your children from disease, then we cannot give people a free pass just because they are acting on their religious beliefs. "
And of course, Phil's concern for children always seems to be a motivating factor, considering they can't really choose to accept belief or deny it, just to go along with what their parents say.
posted by IvoShandor at 6:29 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
More Phil Plait weighing in than Discover Mag.
It seems to me that if you buy into the idea of faith and believing in the supernatural, you should be open to anything. So saying, "Belief is one thing, but when it leads to physical harm..." that's just weird. Belief was the problem in the first place. You can't accept belief and faith and then cry foul when it leads to people getting hurt.
He does go on to say:
"This is a real problem. When I write an article about a person who sees Jesus on a burnt iron or the Virgin Mary in a wood grain pattern, no matter how polite I am someone always accuses me of being arrogant, and asking how dare I make fun of someone’s belief?
This is why I dare do it. Belief is one thing, but when it leads to obvious physical or mental harm then we are obligated to speak up. I have no problem with respecting people’s feelings, or the fact that their beliefs are an important part of their own identities — even if I don’t necessarily respect the belief itself — but when that leads to something like staring at the Sun, or not protecting your children from disease, then we cannot give people a free pass just because they are acting on their religious beliefs. "
And of course, Phil's concern for children always seems to be a motivating factor, considering they can't really choose to accept belief or deny it, just to go along with what their parents say.
posted by IvoShandor at 6:29 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
it's clear at least from the statements of all of the significant founders and teachers in Christianity that that faith, for example, sees itself as limited to things which cannot be verified or scientifically investigated, and useless for trying to determine the truth about, for example, the laws that govern the universe.
The illustrious theologians of centuries past may have respected the Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument, but fewer Christian leaders do today. I wish you would meet the people I deal with in the American south. Laypeople, pastors, leaders of megachurches, Christian authors; they are all very vocal about their beliefs that conflict with science.
posted by Monochrome at 6:43 AM on December 3, 2009
The illustrious theologians of centuries past may have respected the Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument, but fewer Christian leaders do today. I wish you would meet the people I deal with in the American south. Laypeople, pastors, leaders of megachurches, Christian authors; they are all very vocal about their beliefs that conflict with science.
posted by Monochrome at 6:43 AM on December 3, 2009
It didn't matter anyway, in the end. The Athenian Stranger decided to banish the Joe Colemans of the world from the city. Frankly, I think that was the right move.
Because in the end the civic duty of a free citizenry is to protect innocence and disbelief, and not to support or enable claims of belief. This is due to anyone being free to keep their personal beliefs to themselves by the same protections that allow silence. It doesn't work the other way if, say, a law supported a particular dogma or belief and implied that others could to go out and test for a common pious assertion of that belief.
posted by Brian B. at 6:57 AM on December 3, 2009
Because in the end the civic duty of a free citizenry is to protect innocence and disbelief, and not to support or enable claims of belief. This is due to anyone being free to keep their personal beliefs to themselves by the same protections that allow silence. It doesn't work the other way if, say, a law supported a particular dogma or belief and implied that others could to go out and test for a common pious assertion of that belief.
posted by Brian B. at 6:57 AM on December 3, 2009
Monochrome: “The illustrious theologians of centuries past may have respected the Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument, but fewer Christian leaders do today. I wish you would meet the people I deal with in the American south. Laypeople, pastors, leaders of megachurches, Christian authors; they are all very vocal about their beliefs that conflict with science.”
O, believe me, I know them. I was raised by them. Thanksgiving is always a season of anger for me.
posted by koeselitz at 6:59 AM on December 3, 2009
O, believe me, I know them. I was raised by them. Thanksgiving is always a season of anger for me.
posted by koeselitz at 6:59 AM on December 3, 2009
bashos_frog: “This would be cool if it wasn't for the blinding bit. If only there were some phenomenon that would mute them all instead.”
I can't think of any weird religious myth that would do that, but I imagine you might be able to convince the whole nation that you'd seen an image of Satan in Thierry Henry's hand, whatever good that would do.
posted by koeselitz at 7:07 AM on December 3, 2009
I can't think of any weird religious myth that would do that, but I imagine you might be able to convince the whole nation that you'd seen an image of Satan in Thierry Henry's hand, whatever good that would do.
posted by koeselitz at 7:07 AM on December 3, 2009
Between this, the FAI begging FIFA for a spare World Cup slot, floods, recession, strikes, and the Late, Late Toy Show actually being enjoyable this year Ireland is a very strange place to be at the moment.
posted by minifigs at 7:16 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by minifigs at 7:16 AM on December 3, 2009 [4 favorites]
In other words, Christianity states upfront that it can't say anything about the causes and effects we observe in the natural world, but only concerns that about which there can be no scientific investigation.
Using the traditional definition of front, Christianity states upfront that it knows the causes of and timeline for the creation of humanity, biology, and the world, Sun, and stars. At the time these probably sounded like concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation", but such things have a habit of turning out to really be concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation yet". And in hindsight, although starting with "Let there be light" might have been pretty on-the-nose, the lengths and ordering in the remaining chronology go downhill rapidly from there. Ditto on many of the subsequent discussions of human language, hydrodynamic disasters, breeding, disease and death, cosmology...
"We only say things about untestable stuff*" is less impressive when you have to footnote it with "* because everything we said that turns out to be testable will be relegated to 'metaphor' status after the fact".
posted by roystgnr at 7:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Using the traditional definition of front, Christianity states upfront that it knows the causes of and timeline for the creation of humanity, biology, and the world, Sun, and stars. At the time these probably sounded like concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation", but such things have a habit of turning out to really be concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation yet". And in hindsight, although starting with "Let there be light" might have been pretty on-the-nose, the lengths and ordering in the remaining chronology go downhill rapidly from there. Ditto on many of the subsequent discussions of human language, hydrodynamic disasters, breeding, disease and death, cosmology...
"We only say things about untestable stuff*" is less impressive when you have to footnote it with "* because everything we said that turns out to be testable will be relegated to 'metaphor' status after the fact".
posted by roystgnr at 7:34 AM on December 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
See, if it were this Joe Coleman, they'd be seeing apparitions of an entirely different nature.
Or, maybe, not so different. [NSFW]
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:35 AM on December 3, 2009
Or, maybe, not so different. [NSFW]
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:35 AM on December 3, 2009
roystgnr: “Using the traditional definition of front, Christianity states upfront that it knows the causes of and timeline for the creation of humanity, biology, and the world, Sun, and stars.”
Maimonides, the great rabbi, actually argues that the two clearly contradictory creation-stories placed at the very beginning of Genesis are there to indicate directly to the reader that many of the stories to follow must be taken metaphorically. I'm pretty sure St Thomas Aquinas makes that argument, too.
“At the time these probably sounded like concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation", but such things have a habit of turning out to really be concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation yet".”
You're actually quite wrong there. People in the fourth century BC were very aware of the difference between theoretical investigability and practical investigability. Anyone who's ignored Bacon, Spinoza, Descartes, and the whole development of western science, and lives on what they teach us now is likely to feel as though science is some rapidly-expanding blob which soon will encompass everything, but it's actually a discipline with rules and a method: repeat the conditions of an event, observe the commonalities, and extrapolate causes. Through extrapolation and examination there's a lot we can learn, but there are some questions which there is no conceivable potential to investigate through science. In the fourth century BC, one of the great authorities on science and nature noted that those questions included "is there a god?" and "is the universe eternal in time or finite in time?" There is no experiment imaginable which could even imply an answer to either of those questions. There is no investigation of matter which could lead us to a possible solution. That's not what science is for.
“‘We only say things about untestable stuff*’ is less impressive when you have to footnote it with ‘* because everything we said that turns out to be testable will be relegated to 'metaphor' status after the fact.’”
But this isn't 'after the fact;' I'm not lying when I say this has been the teaching of the church all along, and though some Christians might err on this point you as a non-Christian can I hope accept that you simply don't know as much about Church teaching as a Christian might. (There's nothing wrong with that; you don't believe it, so why would you waste a whole bunch of your time reading about it?)
The earliest example of this teaching I can think of offhand is St Gregory the Great's seventh-century sermon on Hebrews 11:1, wherein he states:
This thread was probably most carefully and thoughtfully laid down by St Thomas Aquinas, who notes that this means that any and all things which are theoretically testable are not and cannot be matters of faith; for, as he explains it, belief about things which are the object of experience and scientific investigation is technically not faith at all, but rather opinion, opinion being the belief that one has enough evidence to believe correctly. (I wish I remembered where this was; I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired, but I'm fairly certain it occurred in St Thomas' Commentary On The De Trinitate of Boethius.)
I don't expect you necessarily to believe that the Bible is a wonderful carnival of joy and light, but I figure it may as well be said: the belief that the church didn't from the beginning claim that the Bible was often metaphorical and that faith is about things uninvestigable is historically inaccurate.
posted by koeselitz at 9:24 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maimonides, the great rabbi, actually argues that the two clearly contradictory creation-stories placed at the very beginning of Genesis are there to indicate directly to the reader that many of the stories to follow must be taken metaphorically. I'm pretty sure St Thomas Aquinas makes that argument, too.
“At the time these probably sounded like concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation", but such things have a habit of turning out to really be concerns "about which there can be no scientific investigation yet".”
You're actually quite wrong there. People in the fourth century BC were very aware of the difference between theoretical investigability and practical investigability. Anyone who's ignored Bacon, Spinoza, Descartes, and the whole development of western science, and lives on what they teach us now is likely to feel as though science is some rapidly-expanding blob which soon will encompass everything, but it's actually a discipline with rules and a method: repeat the conditions of an event, observe the commonalities, and extrapolate causes. Through extrapolation and examination there's a lot we can learn, but there are some questions which there is no conceivable potential to investigate through science. In the fourth century BC, one of the great authorities on science and nature noted that those questions included "is there a god?" and "is the universe eternal in time or finite in time?" There is no experiment imaginable which could even imply an answer to either of those questions. There is no investigation of matter which could lead us to a possible solution. That's not what science is for.
“‘We only say things about untestable stuff*’ is less impressive when you have to footnote it with ‘* because everything we said that turns out to be testable will be relegated to 'metaphor' status after the fact.’”
But this isn't 'after the fact;' I'm not lying when I say this has been the teaching of the church all along, and though some Christians might err on this point you as a non-Christian can I hope accept that you simply don't know as much about Church teaching as a Christian might. (There's nothing wrong with that; you don't believe it, so why would you waste a whole bunch of your time reading about it?)
The earliest example of this teaching I can think of offhand is St Gregory the Great's seventh-century sermon on Hebrews 11:1, wherein he states:
But when the Apostle says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, it is plain that things which are seen, are objects not of faith, but of knowledge....but of course St Gregory is interpreting scripture, the founding text of Christianity, and I happen to believe that he is correct in seeing that meaning in it.
This thread was probably most carefully and thoughtfully laid down by St Thomas Aquinas, who notes that this means that any and all things which are theoretically testable are not and cannot be matters of faith; for, as he explains it, belief about things which are the object of experience and scientific investigation is technically not faith at all, but rather opinion, opinion being the belief that one has enough evidence to believe correctly. (I wish I remembered where this was; I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired, but I'm fairly certain it occurred in St Thomas' Commentary On The De Trinitate of Boethius.)
I don't expect you necessarily to believe that the Bible is a wonderful carnival of joy and light, but I figure it may as well be said: the belief that the church didn't from the beginning claim that the Bible was often metaphorical and that faith is about things uninvestigable is historically inaccurate.
posted by koeselitz at 9:24 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
"...is the universe eternal in time or finite in time..."
If that means "How long will the Universe last?" then I think science probably has some hypotheses.
posted by runcibleshaw at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
If that means "How long will the Universe last?" then I think science probably has some hypotheses.
posted by runcibleshaw at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maimonides, the great rabbi, actually argues that the two clearly contradictory creation-stories placed at the very beginning of Genesis are there to indicate directly to the reader that many of the stories to follow must be taken metaphorically
..wouldn't have it been easier for someone inspired by the almighty to start Genesis with "These are stories designed to teach you about the world and are not meant to be taken literally"?
posted by lumpenprole at 10:50 AM on December 3, 2009
..wouldn't have it been easier for someone inspired by the almighty to start Genesis with "These are stories designed to teach you about the world and are not meant to be taken literally"?
posted by lumpenprole at 10:50 AM on December 3, 2009
Another spellbinder harms the credulous in the name of religion when the whole thing is really about a cult of personality. Drink the Kool-Aid, God is on our side, look at the sun = all are contrary to common sense. If you believe in God, then use the brains God gave you.
posted by Cranberry at 11:03 AM on December 3, 2009
posted by Cranberry at 11:03 AM on December 3, 2009
any and all things which are theoretically testable are not and cannot be matters of faith
Which is not to say they can't be matters of religion. The history of a religion is more than the history of its theology. Even outside the specific example of Christianity, there have been plenty of people who seem to find their religious beliefs sufficient to explain the significance of events, regardless of what other methods of inquiry might reveal about the same phenomena. You'll probably be able to find people who think religion is the only thing that illuminates the ultimate significance of phenomena.
I don't mean to be argumentative, just to clarify that the teachings of the Church say many things. The meaning of those teachings is usually an intersection of institutional teaching and popular belief, one doesn't categorically shape the other. Anyone reading papal encyclicals, for example, has to become aware of the way the teachings are used to lend authority to some agenda or another. The idea that there is a monolithic, authoritative teaching in Catholicism, or worse in Christianity, is part of an apologetic.
posted by ServSci at 2:53 PM on December 3, 2009
Which is not to say they can't be matters of religion. The history of a religion is more than the history of its theology. Even outside the specific example of Christianity, there have been plenty of people who seem to find their religious beliefs sufficient to explain the significance of events, regardless of what other methods of inquiry might reveal about the same phenomena. You'll probably be able to find people who think religion is the only thing that illuminates the ultimate significance of phenomena.
I don't mean to be argumentative, just to clarify that the teachings of the Church say many things. The meaning of those teachings is usually an intersection of institutional teaching and popular belief, one doesn't categorically shape the other. Anyone reading papal encyclicals, for example, has to become aware of the way the teachings are used to lend authority to some agenda or another. The idea that there is a monolithic, authoritative teaching in Catholicism, or worse in Christianity, is part of an apologetic.
posted by ServSci at 2:53 PM on December 3, 2009
To be clear, this is not really a Catholic thing, it's more of a new age thing:
Statement by Archbishop Michael Neary on the Shrine of Knock
Joe Coleman has “very many spirit guides – Indian, Buddhist, St Joseph, St Martin, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, who are always in contact before an apparition”. It was “not a Catholic religion thing. It is about the spirit. We come from the spirit and go home to the spirit,” he says.Also, here's the local Archbishop's statement in full:
Statement by Archbishop Michael Neary on the Shrine of Knock
The Meaning of Knockposted by Jahaza at 2:56 PM on December 3, 2009
Knock is a much loved place of pilgrimage and prayer. Ever since the apparition in 1879, believers from home and abroad have made the pilgrimage there in increasing numbers. The most renowned of all pilgrims to the Shrine of Our Lady of Knock was his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, who came for the centenary of the shrine in 1979, thus reaching ‘the goal of his journey to Ireland’ where he was able to ‘make yet another pilgrimage to the Shrine of the Mother of Christ, the Mother of the Church, the Queen of Peace.’ (Homily at Mass in Knock, 30 September 1979).
The great gift of Knock consists in a particular way in prayer and the celebration of the sacraments, in penance and the conversion of life. ‘All those who have come to Knock have received blessings through the intercession of Mary…The sick and suffering, people handicapped in body and in mind, troubled in their faith or their conscience, all have been healed, comforted and confirmed in their faith because they trusted that the Mother of God would lead them to her Son Jesus’ (Pope John Paul II). It is this trust in the Mother of God, this turning to her divine Son borne out in the practical care of the sick, and in the celebration of the sacraments of reconciliation, anointing and Eucharist that lie at the core of the Knock pilgrimage.
For one hundred and thirty years now the pilgrims to Knock have been pilgrims in faith. They ‘walk by faith and not by sight’ to quote the words of St Paul (II Cor 5:7). This is their great blessing, the blessing in fact that Jesus mentions to the doubting Thomas: they have not seen and still they believe (Jn 20:29).
The Authentic Identity of the Shrine
Such faith makes Knock pilgrims firm in hope and active in love for the sick and suffering. They do not expect visions or seek further apparitions. God has manifested Himself in Jesus Christ and His people have responded ever since. It is not healthy, does not give glory to God and certainly is not good witness to the faith to be looking for extraordinary phenomena.
The apparition of 1879 was neither sought nor expected by the humble, honest people who were its astonished witnesses. Their faith reveals the patience and humility that characterises true belief. The Shrine of Knock is living witness to that faith.
Unfortunately, recent events at the Shrine obscure this essential message. They risk misleading God’s people and undermining faith. For this reason such events are to be regretted rather than encouraged.
The Shrine of Knock will be best served by retaining its authentic identity.
ENDS
Also, thinking of Aquinas and popular belief reminded me of a story, it took me a while to track down an online version of it. It's from, appropriately enough, MacKay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:
posted by ServSci at 3:10 PM on December 3, 2009
Thomas Aquinas also could work wonders as well as his master. It is related of him, that he lodged in a street at Cologne, where he was much annoyed by the incessant clatter made by the horses' hoofs, as they were led through it daily to exercise by their grooms. He had entreated the latter to select some other spot where they might not disturb a philosopher, but the grooms turned a deaf ear to all his solicitations. In this emergency he had recourse to the aid of magic. He constructed a small horse of bronze, upon which he inscribed certain cabalistic characters, and buried it at midnight in the midst of the highway. The next morning, a troop of grooms came riding along as usual; but the horses, as they arrived at the spot where the magic horse was buried, reared and plunged violently -- their nostrils distended with terror -- their manes grew erect, and the perspiration ran down their sides in streams. In vain the riders applied the spur -- in vain they coaxed or threatened, the animals would not pass the spot. On the following day, their success was no better. They were at length compelled to seek another spot for their exercise, and Thomas Aquinas was left in peace. [Naude, Apologie des Grands Hommes accuses de Magie; chap. xvii.]
posted by ServSci at 3:10 PM on December 3, 2009
Catholicism aside, if you're discussing whether Genesis should be interpreted literally or metaphorically, I think that you really have to go farther back to the point at which it was written (or believed to be written based on available textual and archaeological evidence). One of the interesting things about Genesis is the wordplay, poetic symmetries and asymmetries evident in it.
It is of course possible to write about literal things using intentionally artistic language, but it has always seemed to me that Genesis does not hold to the appearance of a dry textual report of what occurred when. It was a literary production from the beginning, written by people who were intentionally playing with the language and structure. This is one of the reasons I am not inclined to accept the view that Genesis was "meant" to be taken literally and then was re-interpreted by embarassed Jews and Christians afterwards, which is one of the few points that conservative Christians and many atheist critics of Christianity seem to agree on these days.
Of course, it may still all be tosh - just very well written literary tosh. But I don't think it's tosh that was meant to be taken literally by its authors. Although people were already taking it that way when Augustine wrote his De Genesi ad literam back in the day.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:11 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
It is of course possible to write about literal things using intentionally artistic language, but it has always seemed to me that Genesis does not hold to the appearance of a dry textual report of what occurred when. It was a literary production from the beginning, written by people who were intentionally playing with the language and structure. This is one of the reasons I am not inclined to accept the view that Genesis was "meant" to be taken literally and then was re-interpreted by embarassed Jews and Christians afterwards, which is one of the few points that conservative Christians and many atheist critics of Christianity seem to agree on these days.
Of course, it may still all be tosh - just very well written literary tosh. But I don't think it's tosh that was meant to be taken literally by its authors. Although people were already taking it that way when Augustine wrote his De Genesi ad literam back in the day.
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:11 PM on December 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Capping Day's "Visions of Mary" was about something like this. Unfortunately, I can't find any links to the song. It's a lovely one.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:27 PM on December 3, 2009
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:27 PM on December 3, 2009
the belief that the church didn't from the beginning claim that the Bible was often metaphorical and that faith is about things uninvestigable is historically inaccurate.
However, the belief that the church from the beginning also claimed that the Bible was the source of all knowledge and that questioning the teachings of that Bible was punishable by death (Bruno,Gallileo) is also historically accurate.
posted by telstar at 10:58 PM on December 3, 2009
However, the belief that the church from the beginning also claimed that the Bible was the source of all knowledge and that questioning the teachings of that Bible was punishable by death (Bruno,Gallileo) is also historically accurate.
posted by telstar at 10:58 PM on December 3, 2009
You can't accept belief and faith and then cry foul when it leads to people getting hurt.
The problem, Philosopher Dirtbike, is in defining "belief." For instance: is it a mental disposition? Is it a tacit commitment to a way of thinking about knowledge? Are there such things as rational beliefs or empirical beliefs, and how might one distinguish, with proper formal rigor, such beliefs from irrational or unfounded, superstitious beliefs?
I could say that:
"Philsopher Dirtbike believes that all 'religious beliefs,' broadly speaking, are equally unfounded; he appears to believe that 'belief' is a kind of absolute notion. Whether of not he believes, as some epistemologists claim, that 'knowledge is justified true belief' is unclear."
In other words, it is very easy to make a broad statement condemning belief-as-such, but it is much harder to do so when one scrutinizes what exactly the notion of 'belief' entails.
I tend to believe that certain beliefs, such as in the necessity of causality or the intelligibility of nature, are warranted, but I've read enough Humean-style skepticism, etc., to grant that there are some thorny questions here about what precisely is meant by belief-as-such. Some analytic thinkers are currently arguing (see Williamson) that "knowledge" is best conceived as a mental state, for instance.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:47 AM on December 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
The problem, Philosopher Dirtbike, is in defining "belief." For instance: is it a mental disposition? Is it a tacit commitment to a way of thinking about knowledge? Are there such things as rational beliefs or empirical beliefs, and how might one distinguish, with proper formal rigor, such beliefs from irrational or unfounded, superstitious beliefs?
I could say that:
"Philsopher Dirtbike believes that all 'religious beliefs,' broadly speaking, are equally unfounded; he appears to believe that 'belief' is a kind of absolute notion. Whether of not he believes, as some epistemologists claim, that 'knowledge is justified true belief' is unclear."
In other words, it is very easy to make a broad statement condemning belief-as-such, but it is much harder to do so when one scrutinizes what exactly the notion of 'belief' entails.
I tend to believe that certain beliefs, such as in the necessity of causality or the intelligibility of nature, are warranted, but I've read enough Humean-style skepticism, etc., to grant that there are some thorny questions here about what precisely is meant by belief-as-such. Some analytic thinkers are currently arguing (see Williamson) that "knowledge" is best conceived as a mental state, for instance.
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 10:47 AM on December 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
the belief that the church from the beginning also claimed that the Bible was the source of all knowledge and that questioning the teachings of that Bible was punishable by death (Bruno,Gallileo) is also historically accurate.
I'm not sure which Bruno you mean (probably not St. Bruno) but you do know that Gallileo wasn't killed, right?
posted by Jahaza at 10:16 PM on December 4, 2009
I'm not sure which Bruno you mean (probably not St. Bruno) but you do know that Gallileo wasn't killed, right?
posted by Jahaza at 10:16 PM on December 4, 2009
I wrote this in the Steorn thread too, but it has to go here now as well:
I'm embarrassed to be on the same island as these idiots.
posted by knapah at 2:30 PM on December 17, 2009
I'm embarrassed to be on the same island as these idiots.
posted by knapah at 2:30 PM on December 17, 2009
« Older My Mom Is Proud of HDR Photography | Orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jzed at 1:57 AM on December 3, 2009