'Nothing beyond the constructs to cover the abyss...

[Gob]

THE lives of people without faith have ''nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss'', Cardinal George Pell said yesterday at a Mass to install the former Defence Force chief General Peter Cosgrove as chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.

''A minority of people, usually people without religion, are frightened by the future,'' Cardinal Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, said during his homily at the St Mary's Cathedral Mass.

''It's almost as though they've … nothing but fear to distract themselves from the fact that without God the universe has no objective purpose or meaning. Nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss.''

Life without God was ''life without purpose, without constraints'', he said.

Cardinal Pell said education was not enough to create a civilised society, that faith was necessary too. He cited the example of 20th century Germany, which he said was the best educated society in the world when Hitler became leader.

''Australian society will become increasingly coarse and uncaring … if Christian principles are excluded from public discussion.

''The secularists pursuing this aim won't be successful.''

We should not create an ''ideological apartheid'' between faith and reason, Cardinal Pell said.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/faithles ... 18cg3.html

I do not love thee, Dr Pell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not love thee, Dr Pell.

[Crackpot]

What about in a Box
Or with a fox
Then will you love Dr. Pell?

[thestoat]

Hasn't get got anything better to do than spout such tosh? Surely there must be someone for him to molest?

[Gob]

THE lives of people with faith have constructs they confect to cover the abyss their faith uses to frighten them into submission.

[dgs49]

Not surprisingly, I agree with the guy.

Is it even arguable that the most evil people of the 20th (and 21st) centuries were atheists? One might say that Hitler professed Christian faith at one time or another, but his words and actions clearly indicate a godless person (or one who believed himself to be a god). Stalin. Pol Pot. Chairman Mao. The kooks who have been running NKorea. Castro. This list goes on and on.

Which is not to say that no evil things have been done (and continue to be done) in the name of "god."

And regardless of a belief in "god," is it even arguable that one can expect the worst behavior from people who do not believe that they are ultimately responsible for their actions (i.e., those who do not believe in life after death)?

"Confect"? WTF?

[Andrew D]

I don't see how a belief in life after death is much of a deterrent, if one believes that one can escape the consequences of one's wrongdoing by being absolved by one of a particular class of persons.

[loCAtek]

It has to be asked for with sincere repentance.

[Gob]

"Confect"? WTF?

confect
   
–verb (used with object)
1.
to make up, compound, or prepare from ingredients or materials: to confect a herbal remedy for colds.
2.
to make into a preserve or confection.
3.
to construct, form, or make: to confect a dress from odds and ends of fabric.

[tyro]

Would you confect a construct, or would you construct a confect.

[Andrew D]

It has to be asked for with sincere repentance.

Well, it requires true contrition. But that's a semantic dispute which we can leave for another day.

The bottom line is that it requires that one, at the moment of confession/absolution, have resolved not to do the bad thing again. But it does not require that one not actually do the bad thing again. On the contrary, one can be absolved from a bad thing (and its consequences) over and over and over, provided that one sincerely decide not to do the bad thing again.

And we all know that people can sincerely intend not to do the bad thing again but end up doing it again anyway. Many addicts sincerely resolve not to drink/smoke/inject, etc., again. And they are truly sincere -- at that moment they really want not to do it again, and they are are really committed to not doing it again.

But then reality sets in. And they end up drinking/smoking/injecting again.

We see the same thing in cases of spousal abuse. The abuser sincerely resolves not to do it again. But then he or she does.

There are, of course, cases in which the addict/abuser/etc. really does manage not to do it again. But those are not most cases.

In most cases, it's a matter of luck: If between the time of one's latest absolution and the time of one's death, one has not done the bad thing again, then all is good. But if between the time of one's latest absolution and the time of one's death, one has done the bad thing again, then all is bad.

(Except it's not really a matter of luck: God set it all up beforehand, and one is just a helpless pawn in whatever divine game is being played. But that's another subject.)

I still fail to see how that adds up to a meaningful deterrent. Sure, the possibility that one will die having done the bad thing and not having been absolved could be, in theory, a deterrent. But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work very well.

[thestoat]

I still fail to see how that adds up to a meaningful deterrent. Sure, the possibility that one will die having done the bad thing and not having been absolved could be, in theory, a deterrent. But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work very well.

I'm sure it would work as a deterrent if there was a god

[loCAtek]

AndrewD, I agree it's not so much of a deterrence, as an admission that you need help in controlling your behavior, for your sake and others. That is basis of the 12 steps of AA;

These are the original Twelve Steps as published by Alcoholics Anonymous:[10]

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

In the real world it works often enough(understandably not 100%) that it is continually re-discovered.

This study suggests recidivism rates decrease when religion is practiced.

[dgs49]

Deterrence requires (1) the fear of being discovered, and (2) the knowledge that one will be punished (in one way or another) after the evil deed (or whatever) is discovered.

Interestingly, we had in this country a "Television Code of Ethics" which compelled program producers to create programming in which the bad guy never got away. It helped to create in the Public mind a certainty that if you committed a crime, it would be discovered by police and you would be punished. Consistent with this principle, one never saw a cop show, for example, or a movie, where the bad guys got away (alive). Alfred Hitchcock used to play games with this principle on occasion when he would end the story with the bad guys getting away, then he would come on at the end and say something like, "...of course the constabulary was waiting for their plane when it reached Rio, and the malefactors were extradited back to the U.S., where they spent the rest of their lives in prison."

RCatholic belief is that a priest has the power to forgive sins in the name of God (" ...whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained..."), but such forgiveness requires a "good" act of contrition and a firm resolve never to commit that sin again. Thus, a sinner who "games" the system does not have his sins forgiven, in spite of the priest's absolution. Further, one can never know when s/he will die, so the impact (if any) on the reward/punishment paradigm is not rendered impotent by the existence of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You never know whether you will have the opportunity to say a "good" act of contrition or to be absolved between the time of the last "mortal" sin and death.

Clearly the Church is moving away from this mathematical, quantitative view of "salvation," and discouraging this sort of discussion. In fact, most Catholics believe (wrongly) that the Church has abandoned the belief in Purgatory.

Although I would not be optimistic about the results of a comprehensive survey comparing the relative virtuousness of professed atheists versus that of "believers," it stands to reason that anyone who believes himself somehow ultimately responsible for his behavior will temper that behavior with his own view of what good and evil are. OTOH, most atheists in our culture simply deny that conduct that has for generations been considered evil is actually evil (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, sex outside marriage, adult pornography, lust, envy, gluttony, etc.). With this long list of exceptions, it is a simple matter indeed to pat oneself on the back and claim to be "virtuous." We actually had a horn-dog president not so long ago who had the morals of a barnyard animal, yet claimed to be "saved." Go figure.

[Gob]

OTOH, most atheists in our culture simply deny that conduct that has for generations been considered evil is actually evil (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, sex outside marriage, adult pornography, lust, envy, gluttony, etc.).

Dave, genuine question, which of the above do you consider "evil", and which do you consider "wrong".

[Big RR]

And FWIW, I don't think that most people, even the very religious,considered those behaviors "evil", just wrong. Even the fabled seven deadly sins are just examples of behaviors to be avoided not eause they are particularly "evil", but because tey tend to make the actor unhealthy, spiritually, and often physically. And things like sodomy never even rose to this level.

edited to add: and if you want to bring back "evil" which was condemned, then I guess we'd need to condemn witchcraft, necromancy, and heresy--things which were called "evil" by the religious authorities simply because it attacked their positions. Are you advocating bringing back the era or intellectual vacuity the religious leaders wanted in those days? IMHO "evil" is just a loaded word which is used by those in power to control those who are not; it's still used today to the same end, and has as much validity as condemning witches as evil.

[dgs49]

Not sure I understand the difference between "evil" and "wrong." To me, they are the same, but maybe it's semantics.

(1) abortion is morally unacceptable (i.e., evil, wrong) because no one can know for certain when a fetus gains personhood. With this question outstanding, killing it is morally untenable. (2) euthanasia, in a similar way, is evil. It is done generally for the convenience of the survivors not for the good of the kill-ee. Note the distinction between euthanasia which is the active taking of a life, and simply allowing someone to die (e.g., persistent veg state), which I personally do not consider euthanasia.

(3) sodomy has for eons been considered "wrong," despite the fact that it has been for just as long practiced. For me it's not much of an issue, but I'm inclined to go along with a few millennia of religious leaders and philosophers, basically all of whom have come to the same conclusion. (4) the only reason why sex outside marriage seems harmless today is because of the ubiquitousness of effective birth control. Again, we have a hundred generations of unanimous agreement among religious and philosophical leaders that sexual congress is rightly confined to couples in monogamous marriage. Who am I to argue?

(5) adult pornography renders sexual intercourse a harmless diversion. And yet, the people whose opinion I hold in highest esteem say - pretty much uniformly - that sex between people who love one another should hold as high a place in the secular world as sacraments do in the religious realm. It is not to be trifled with in this way.

(6)lust, envy, and gluttony are to evil behavior what marijuana (in its current chemical formulation) is to harder, addictive drugs. They are wrong, and to be avoided, even though they do not cause any immediate harm to any other human being.

[Gob]

Well Dave, I admire your candour if not your views.

[thestoat]

(2) euthanasia, in a similar way, is evil. It is done generally for the convenience of the survivors not for the good of the kill-ee

So therefore you are presumably arguing that euthanasia in specific circumstances is evil - not euthanasia per se. Or do you believe euthanasia is evil even if the subject is of sound mind and wishes it themselves?

(3) sodomy has for eons been considered "wrong," despite the fact that it has been for just as long practiced. For me it's not much of an issue, but I'm inclined to go along with a few millennia of religious leaders and philosophers, basically all of whom have come to the same conclusion.

A few millennia of religious leaders and philosophers have believed the earth is flat. Is this your view too?

(5) adult pornography renders sexual intercourse a harmless diversion

I have heard the view expressed that adult porn is itself the harmless diversion since no emotions are required. It would therefore elevate sexual intercourse as the real thing. Few ould enjoy looking at cake more than eating it.

[dales]

AndrewD, I agree it's not so much of a deterrence, as an admission that you need help in controlling your behavior, for your sake and others. That is basis of the 12 steps of AA;

These are the original Twelve Steps as published by Alcoholics Anonymous:[10]

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

In the real world it works often enough(understandably not 100%) that it is continually re-discovered.

This study suggests recidivism rates decrease when religion is practiced.

......................bravo!

[dgs49]

For the record, I personally do not necessarily consider suicide to be morally wrong unless doing so creates unreasonable hardship on others. This is contrary to the teaching of the RC Church. If a particular case of euthanasia is merely carrying out the rational wishes of the kill-ee (who does not have the capacity to do it herself), then go for it. You may go to jail, but this is all theoretical anyway.

There is a huge difference between a broadly-held scientific misconception (earth as center of the universe, etc), and a consensus moral judgment. Moralists and ethicists (i.e., religious leaders) can learn from generations of experience to ascertain whether certain behaviors that seem harmless might be detrimental to the persons and the community in the longer term.

Casting aside our preconceptions and feelings, one might ask, Why do virtually all religious traditions condemn male homosexual acts? It seems harmless. It doesn't bother anyone. It gives enjoyment to at least one of the participants. And in spite of the fact that it has apparently gone on in virtually all societies to one extent or another throughout human history, there is a universal consensus that it is something to be discouraged and condemned.

The consensus on this board (and on the political Left) seems to be: "Every religious and moral leader in recorded history was simply wrong on this point."

Does that strike you as rather arrogant?