Audio: Hitchens on Metaphysics and my conversation about

Christopher Hitchens reading from “God is Not Great” his chapter on metaphysics.

Part One:

Part Two:

My post on the pope and original sin led to an interesting conversation between myself and Rory Fenton, whose apostate story on leaving Catholicism can be read here.

The view on original sin of Jehovah’s Witnesses (with whom I studied with as a child into adolescence) is very similar to Catholicism. Good works are not enough, Christ needed to die to redeem mankind.

Where we did differ was whether metaphysical claims should bother atheists with the olive branch by the pope. A robust but good natured debate followed, and our differences could in large part be based on how our respective religions view apostates. Providing Rory leads a good life, and does not become a satanist his actions (not belief) would be enough for salvation and Catholics would judge him on his works. On the other hand my knowing the truth and rejecting makes me an apostate in the literal biblical sense – no Jehovah’s Witness can talk to me, and demons may make use of me to make others fall away from the faith. As Rory rightly says, I’m fucked.

The apostasy project is not just about helping those with doubts about their religion have a non judgemental place to discuss their feelings to leave their faith – it also helps to explain the nature of what apostasy means for different people.

John:
Why the pope saying atheists are redeemed from original sin is actually offensive to us [blog post]

Rory:
I don’t get your argument. Seems to say “yeah he said something nice but he’s still catholic so it doesn’t count” What do you mean?

John:
1. we would be wretched things to want original sin to be true
2. The idea of a birth by a virgin without man’s seed is a “purity” I can do without
3. Baptism to get God’s grace is something I can do without, especially regarding being a moral person
4. Original sin is based on an “un-biological tortured zombie fairy story, helped by holy water taken externally.
So no not saying it was nice – it’s not- and it’s invalid not because pope is catholic but because it’s an insult to rationality.

Rory:
Yes but those are arguments against Catholicism, not that when the pope says we can be genuinely good people its a bad thing. Surely it’s extending a hand [of] friendship and humility?

John:
I quote the bit the pope says regarding original sin – not that atheists should be allowed to do good as Catholics do. The concept of original sin to us is not an extension of friendship – it means we need the divine. That we are base, immoral.

Original sin means we accept we need a perfect divine, if you will man born without seamen of a virgin to die for us to be saved. And you really want to say “that’s a nice gesture that in no way insults my morals or intelligence”? That would be my point.

Photo above from here as an example where good works not enough, accepting Christ (and doctrine of original sin) is essential for salvation.

Rory:
It is indeed a nice feature that in no real way insults my morals or intelligence. Beyond the metaphysics the pope is saying “hey, Catholics and atheists can meaningfully work together to make the world nicer”.

John:
You mean work [together] on women’s rights, contraception, homosexuality, safeguarding children, removing guilt, faith schools, blasphemy?

Rory:
Now *those* are practical beliefs where I’ll happily take to arms with you.
I don’t really see the point in getting hung up on metaphysical beliefs. What matters are practical beliefs, how we live.

John:
it is for meta-physical beliefs people think born in sin, need Jesus’ death and resurrection and will not leave their faith for hell.

Rory:
I left Catholicism myself and no one said I would go to hell, since that isn’t a catholic belief. Good people go to heaven, bad people (a very small number) to hell. Belief is not the deciding factor.

John
“only ex-Catholics who will assuredly face judgement for their apostasy are those who know their faith and grasp the truth of it” [Source] We are apostates my friend, and we are dammed. Accept my hell is non existence as a JW

Rory
Ah that means people who believed in God but CHOSE to go against him, eg a Catholic who turned satanist, not a sincere atheist (I guess it’s like the distinction between a conscientious objector and a coward, one sincere rebellion, the other flawed). But yes, as an ex JW, you’re fucked.

John:
if there is a celestial court I think we both will need damn good lawyers ….

Rory:
Ha let’s just hope whoever the god is takes bribes…

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Pope woos Atheists, do not fall for it

My comrades, my fellow anti theists, atheists and contrarians, if you really think this is an olive branch to us with the pope saying:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.” Vatican Radio

Then we need to talk about original sin.

Christ died for the original sin of Adam. That covers all of us, whether we believe it or not. Without that sacrifice we would all be unworthy of redemption. Nothing we could do on earth would recover us from this sin we ourselves did not commit, but was imprinted on us by what took place before the human race begat with a vengeance. Yes the pope said, atheists could do good. However the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ is what redeems us in the end.

As the Vatican explains:

IN BRIEF

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).

421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).

The redemption that spreads much further than loaves and fishes ever could in the economy of salvation.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

This is no new revelation. You have this imprinted on you, transmitted by descent. It was a problem for humanity for hundreds of thousands of years till a sacrificial scapegoat became the ultimate offering of flesh and blood born without man’s seed of a virgin for double purity. We would be wretched things if we had to believe this.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

To fully seize this you must accept baptism (my emphasis in above quote). There is a chance for you atheist. Lead a good moral life, pope says you can you know. Just before you push off this mortal coil a splash of water will give you God’s grace. The priest will wait, your whole life if necessary, to help in this final act of salvation. Your moral life would have been a lot easier with a little of the religious cool aid.

I hope if in my last moments of time I do not succumb to invitations to seek the spiritual side, coaxed perhaps by well wishers concerned for all the blog posts I have written. Christopher Hitchens reminded us:

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.

The rational response to the pope is thanks but no thanks. I do not want to be considered worthy and redeemed only by an un-biological tortured zombie fairy story, helped by holy water taken externally.

Follow Up Post: Audio of Hitchens on metaphysics and a conversation on pope’s offer

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Video: David Bowie – The Next Day

Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard in a pop video by David Bowie, which makes sacrilegious use of imagery in a way former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey calls “Juvenile”.

Is that not enough of a recommendation to watch the video?

Enjoy, but if you are under 18 do not watch. Because, just like religion, it may disturb you.

The Catholic Defence League did not live up to it’s name, going instead for an ad hominem attack on David’s sexuality and age. Rather than a deconstruction of the video imagery used. Naturally the more you say how terrible something on the Internet is, the more people will watch.

Yet they also ignore that by wanting salvation they are actually part of that baying crowd wanting Jesus crucified to save them. A perfect man without sin to die for a particular disease of original sin. So we can keep on sinning but have a chance at redemption.

Christians cannot get enough of that doomsday song. The irony Bowie is pointing out is lost on them, as they try to drown out the message by their condemnation. Still, we can remind them.

Hopefully youtube will not pull down again, having mistakingly done so earlier.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Ricky Gervais & How I chose to be an atheist

Ricky upsets a journalist and I explain my choice of atheism

As ever, the views of some can be exaggerated and then used to paint all, suggesting this is the bigger picture. On twitter you can chose to follow people who will tell you how nothing supports religion being true, that God is a bastard, and you are a moron if you believe. Then you can say this is the new wave of atheism.

Social media means you can find anyone voicing any opinion on any subject you like so you can choose to find what you agree with and what you disagree with. A journalist can mock Dawkins that he could not get a crowd of 200,000 well wishers like the pope. Ricky Gervais can mock morons that need education in reply to that tweet . That journalist can then blog about it, feeling hurt for Catholics insulted, then mock Gervais’ career and achievements since “The Office”. Earning his journalistic pay cheque because traffic will be higher to the blog having talked about Gervais, who he despises for filling his twitter feed with “sick” jokes. Still maybe professional blogs these days are about catching a whale with tweet bait, and blubbering to make a buck when caught.

The unfollow option is there on twitter; unless you want to be continually offended. So you can tell people about the offence. Then get paid for writing how offended you were.

Yet there is one thing in the whole debate, on my side of atheism, which is disingenuous when recycled again and again. The:

I have looked at the evidence, only rational conclusion is man made. I have not chosen atheism, it is the only rationale thing to be. Having faith there is a God does not make it true; my non belief is based on logic not sentiment.

My point would be – we still chose to be atheists. There are a myriad of reasons why you might be religious even if not true (social status, better health, feeling good about it, fear of persecution, and yes Ricky lack of education about alternatives). You could believe God was a first cause, then went away and all human thought is trying to get to grips with that cut umbilical cord.

Looking at organised religion I do see the designs and machinations of human (and predominantly male) thinking. The idea of individual salvation and personal insight sounds blissful, but how that differs from a delusion to being actual spiritual enlightenment there seems no clear way to mark the distinction.

All things considered, I choose atheism. It makes more sense to how I think about these things. If there is a God not too fussed what they make of that. Trying to make sense of human thought past and present, and developing my own, this is a small part of who I have decided to be. Religion is a human thought I disagree with.

I do not want a utopia where all agree and follow my reasoning. Instead aiming for a world where we celebrate differences and agree no one should be harmed for religious or ideological or ethnic or racial or gender or sexual orientation reasons. Religion seems to hinder these things burning bridges while stressing to all who listen it is the ark to cross over to the other side.

The great thing is you do not have to be an atheist, or educated, to be moral. So let us speak up above the rants, and hissy fits that try to dominate social media. Avoiding the rabbit holes, and tweet baits that await us.

Photo from Ricky Gervais site

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Dave Allen: First Contact with God – video

Dave Allen on being introduced to concept of God as a child. Funny, and if you have never heard of this late great comic well worth catching up with. Really is a comedy legend.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

The Pope – get thee to a police station

The pope wishes to retire to a monastery, rather than serve out his term to death, as his mind and body decay. This is a break from tradition, rather than exceptional which is a superlative not to be used for this pontiff.

Citing wavering strength of mind and body, Pope Benedict XVI announced his decision to resign from the papacy at the end of February. He will be the first pope to abdicate in nearly six centuries. In 2010, as allegations of pedophilic priests continued to swirl, Christopher Hitchens decried individual and institutional corruption within the church’s sacred walls. His original article is [available at this link here]

One would hope that a new pope would deal with corruption, open up church records to bring child abusers, rapists, their allies to temporal justice, and put in place the best child safeguards the secular world has ever had. Then we can deal with the dogma and attitudes which I have dealt with in this blog. Some highlights feature below:

Gay rights:

Which rights would he not like to see equal? Being at the death bed of the person you love? To have the wishes of your will honoured? To have the same pension rights in your old age? To let society know how much you passionately love someone? To be notified and treated as next of kin?

To be treated as a human being with human rights?

Let the pope speak – his words reveal a black heart lacking compassion more then we could write. With every word he not only becomes a relic of a persecuting age, but a figure of actual hate. At a time of peace to men of good will he has spent it all some time ago,

His words on World Peace Day tell us everything we need to know.

Twitter and first message:

The news seem to be suggesting that the use of a modern social communication platform shows the Catholic Church in a good light. Well, the Spanish Inquisition used the latest technology at their disposal. It is what you do with it that counts.

I rather hope the first tweet would start with the word “Sorry”. What follows that word is an almost inexhaustible list.

When people die for the creed espoused being refused a life saving abortion, families are torn apart because their sexual orientation is considered immoral, when sex is less sinful when sexually transmitted diseases are easier to transfer, when poorly new born babies face purgatory without a ritual, when the view of women prevents the very empowerment they need to end poverty, covering up abuse and allowing paedophiles to continue to have access to children rather than face justice …

Angry … does not being to cover it.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Pope against gay union equal under law

Note the pope is not just against gay marriage. He is against them having the same legal rights and entitlements that heterosexual couples have.

The Catholic leader said on Friday: “There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union.

“Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilise marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society”, the Pope told worshipers.

Source (emphasis added)

Which rights would he not like to see equal? Being at the death bed of the person you love? To have the wishes of your will honoured? To have the same pension rights in your old age? To let society know how much you passionately love someone? To be notified and treated as next of kin?

To be treated as a human being with human rights?

Let the pope speak – his words reveal a black heart lacking compassion more then we could write. With every word he not only becomes a relic of a persecuting age, but a figure of actual hate. At a time of peace to men of good will he has spent it all some time ago,

His words on World Peace Day tell us everything we need to know.

Related previous blog: Will the pope say sorry in first tweet?

Fry/Hitchens take on Catholic Church

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

The Pope follows himself

Seeing who the pope was following (namely himself) reminded me of a Peter O’Toole quote:

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.

The tweets will apparently start from next week.

The Vatican has announced that the long-awaited papal Twitter account will open for business at midday on 12 December, leaving little room for random ramblings by the pope, and will kick off with a Q&A session to show it truly is his voice.

“With the Obama White House, a tweet will come out every now and then that is actually written by the president,” said Monsignor Paul Tighe, secretary of the pontifical council for social communication (PCSC). “Here, every tweet will be seen and approved by the pope.”

Source The Guardian

The news seem to be suggesting that the use of a modern social communication platform shows the Catholic Church in a good light. Well, the Spanish Inquisition used the latest technology at their disposal. It is what you do with it that counts.

I rather hope the first tweet would start with the word “Sorry”. What follows that word is an almost inexhaustible list.

When people die for the creed espoused being refused a life saving abortion, families are torn apart because their sexual orientation is considered immoral, when sex is less sinful when sexually transmitted diseases are easier to transfer, when poorly new born babies face purgatory without a ritual, when the view of women prevents the very empowerment they need to end poverty, covering up abuse and allowing paedophiles to continue to have access to children rather than face justice …

Angry … does not being to cover it.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Inter belief dialogue

The Pope has announced that there will be a Catholic/Muslim summit between 24 scholars and religious leaders of each side. This will happen just over a year from when the Pope made his speech in Regensburg, Germany where he mentioned that Islam spread across the Arab world not so much by winning hearts and minds but through the sword.

This brings me to the question of whether it is worth having such inter faith dialogues, and in particular when humanists become involved. I have attended Christian atheist ones – I have to say that for some of the Christians that attended it was the first time not only that they had really examined what they personally believed, but had their faith scrutinized.

The issue for me is what the purpose of the meeting is meant to be. If it is just a public relations exercise then it seems pointless. If on the other hand real concerns are being debated, for example where religious hatred is manifesting itself in society and people are stirring up violence, such dialogue may help people to appreciate what is happening in their community.

The thing is in a pluralistic democracy, such meetings of civic groups can be a good thing. Citizens talking about differences, common accord and areas where they can work together for the benefit of society is one that can be endorsed.

However in a truly pluralistic society this is not about a cartel of groups making decisions – all interested citizens and groups have a level playing field inputting into the decision making process. That is where of course you get the issue of the political process acting as gate keepers to the policy making process. But the idea is a bedrock of democracy that you can make representations and the policy process is accountable.

Because the concept of what actually entails the public good does differ.

The joint statement promised that the Pope would be talking about critical issues facing humankind:

It said the Pope would address the meeting on the themes of “Love of God, Love of Neighbour”, “Theological and Spiritual Foundation” and “Human Dignity and Mutual Respect”.

Public relations and theological fencing exercises seem to be the order of the day. Will they talk about such issues as:

• human rights for women
• freedom of expression
• freedom of choice
• the right to disagree
• stewardship of the planet (physical rather than spiritual)

Perhaps they could proclaim that those who use violence and intimidation, rather than try to win hearts and minds by rational argument, are the enemies of reason. Perhaps they could even condemn those that use faith as a means to condone such activity that brings rent-a-mob to the streets. Instead of indulgences for fragile sensibilities to excuse such behaviour.

I am sure they could find time for that. When we see the worst humanitarian crisis in Gaza since 1967, the need to understand that we need peace rather than division in the world, dialogue rather than discord is one that all those leaders – self proclaimed or otherwise – need to embrace if we are to wake up to the fact that it is not the planet that needs rescuing.

We need to save humanity from itself. Reason and science are there waiting to be heard and acted on. Are we going to heed the call or believe only what we want to believe?

Quote taken from BBC News report here.