Don't know much about Cardinal Pell. Apparently, he wanted the priest to perform mass while facing away from the congregation rather than facing it, a position (literally) I would endorse if I cared, first because that's the way it was when I became an altar boy and second because the priest isn't the star of the show.

But as a Cardinal, I assume he wanted everyone else to be a Catholic, of the old school if he was old school. There are things Catholics do as part of being Catholic, just as there are things chess players do as part of playing chess. I don't think it's "good" that I make moves according to the rules of chess, but I ought to do so if I want to play chess.

there are 613 commandments, — Hanover

Jesus Christ! Oh. Sorry.

I'm not sure what would be moral about...well, I don't know what all those commandments are, so you have me at a disadvantage. Does one of them have to do about not eating unclean animals (I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic). If so, how would refraining from doing so be moral?

I don't see how to understand that in a coherent fashion. What is ethics if not what one ought do? — Banno

Well, OHCAC says I should "drink the wine and chew the wafer" (as Tom Lehrer sang in his magnificent song The Vatican Rag, which you should listen to if you haven't already), which is to say participate in the Eucharist. Now, am I acting ethically when I do so? What is it that's "good" about the drinking and the chewing? What if I merely chewed? Am I being "bad" if I do neither? What if I skip drinking and chewing a few times? Am I unethical? I think not. One doesn't drink and chew because it's good to do so, but that it shows one's devotion to and belief in OHCAC and Jesus.

If you are generally tolerant of the views of those who have found personal existential meaning and you have no concern trying to proselytize others to your views, it would seem no one should have any reason to object to that kind of person. — Hanover

Ah, good. As delightful as it is to compare China and Iran, I'd prefer to explore the motivations of theists (or other believers, to the extent they're involved) and atheists in their dispute about God.

Now, I suppose it's possible that theists engage with atheists because they think atheists are unethical, it being necessary that God is accepted in order for mere mortals to be moral. And, I suppose it's possible atheists engage with theists because they contest that view. But that doesn't seem to be the origin of the debate, nor does it account for its intensity. It's just not juicy enough, as it were.

Intolerance would account for the intensity, which sometimes devolves into contempt. But intolerance by atheists seems inappropriate where there is simply belief, without demand that others believe as well or behave as if they believe, or that others support the belief. If someone claimed to be a follower of Mithras, I'd be eager to find out just what that means (I wish we did), but wouldn't feel obliged to say "There ain't no Mithras" and argue the point with him/her. If someone claimed to be an atheist, I wouldn't feel obliged to argue that God exists, though I feel there's something which may be called divine.

So, is that all there is? Intolerance on both sides, which flares up whenever someone claims there is or is not a God?

Those who think god's favour is dependent on our actions will have quite different attitudes towards what we ought do, to those who suppose god uninvolved.

Again, the issue is ethics rather than metaphysics. — Banno

I dunno. That would seem to make ritual tantamount to ethics. According to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC), for example, we ought to partake of or participate in the Sacraments. But I doubt it would consider doing so to be a matter of ethics.

I'm assuming you mean here a god that can't be pleased by any human actions or gestures? I guess the debate would have no where to go. — Tom Storm

That's what I mean, yes. So, can we say then that the debate is driven by the belief in a God influenced by human conduct? [Wow, this is what Socrates must have felt like]

I think so.

Is this serious? — Mikie

Certainly not. Clearly, it's being abused because of neoliberalism.

Let's try this (I'm genuinely curious). Would this debate be taking place, or be significantly different, if the God at issue is:

"Merely" the Creator of the universe, i.e. one that having done so, does not intervene, is not influenced by worship or prayer--is the First Mover and nothing more;

Immanent--a part of the universe and therefore which can be known only through the universe, not supernatural, but an active, generative force guiding it (Fate or Providence).

True. Very relevant, here.

And yet "Gott mit uns". — 180 Proof

Or maybe more to the point, Deus Vult!

Theism is significant because too many damn theists proselytize and/or inject magical thinking – superstitions – into their explanations or arguments, even in nonreligious contexts (e.g. politics, commerce, science, ethics). Mostly, atheism is an intrinsic threat to theism because it is always a live option for (thinking) theists like potential defectors from a blinkered, totalitarian regime. — 180 Proof

Theism seems to tend towards exclusivity. I wonder if that may explain some of the intensity of the debate. Some of the ancient pagan philosophers thought traditional pagan religious beliefs, largely polytheistic and non-exclusive, to be unfounded and even silly, but as far as I know there was no debate or dispute between them, and pagan philosophers would participate in rituals or favor compliance with them or at least tolerate them.

The discussion is to a large extent a proxy for ethical issues - the ubiquitous presumption of theists that it is they alone who engage with morals. Hence the need felt by Lewis and Chesterton and Newman. — Banno

It may be more accurate to say they believed there could be no morals without theism, or rather their brand ot it. Lewis and Newman were odd ducks to begin with, I believe. Lewis seemed to believe that Christianity was "manly" is some sense. Newman thought the real world wasn't this one. Chesterton could be witty and I think would have been good company.

Your OP is very coy. Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion. It ignores the fact that our culture, and this forum, are full of atheists who aggressively attack religious beliefs and show disrespect for religious institutions. They are not passive. They are self-righteous and bitter. Many clearly are reacting to bad experiences with religion in their youth.

Which is fine. Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. The atheist's attacks on religion are more than that. They are often also political attacks on traditional culture and spiritual values masquerading as rational argument. I am not a theist, but I am interested in atheism because I think it is generally a mean-spirited, irrational, and generally poorly argued sham. — T Clark

Oh here it is. Sorry.

quote="T Clark;777432"]Oh...why would anyone object to the things that atheists say about religion.[/quote]

I can think of some reasons. But what I'd like to address is the reasons for the intensity of what strikes me as a futile debate.

Just don't act all surprised when religious people respond back. — T Clark

I'm not surprised. I wonder why they bother to do so, however, when in doing so they defend their religious beliefs (belief in God, I mean) as established by proofs which they think rebut claims made that there is no proof. Why is rebuttal important to them? Why should there be proof of the existence of God?

One can also wonder why atheists find it necessary to establish there is no proof. The claims of the "new atheists" (I haven't read them) seem directed more to religious institutions than to proving there is no God, but I may be wrong. Those I think are fair game. But if one goes around proclaiming there is no God, proselytizing as it were, I wonder why they bother to do so.

unlike Ciceronianus's cutie pie faux surprise. — T Clark

Oh dear. I'm never cute. It's true, though, that I'm not surprised by much. Still, "cutie pie faux surprise" is interesting. In what sense did I express surprise? If I did, how was it faux? How was it "cutie pie" (unless that's intended to qualify "faux" and not "surprise", in which case how was the "faux" "cutie pie")?

The second amendment was only interpreted as it is in 2008. Not long ago. That itself is also an affect of neoliberalism, as is the depression that arises from years of neoliberal policies that have destroyed the working and middle class. — Mikie

I'm not sure how neoliberal policies impacted the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we must deal with the Second Amendment and views of it as they exist now, not as they may have been in those halcyon days before neoliberalism, when guns and opiates posed no problems.

The states with greater gun regulations, like here in NE, have far less mass shootings — Mikie

Indeed. Just look at California.

Prohibition should have taught us something about the efficacy of regulation of stimulants, depressants, pain-killers, etc. Opiates like fentanyl have a legitimate use as a pain-killer. It is being abused. Is it being abused because of neoliberalism, or because people want it? If its use is outlawed or limited by law, what is the likelihood it won't be abused?

For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Yes. But I don't understand the need, or even the desire, they would have in engaging with atheists, unless they feel it's possible to contend with them on their "home field" as it were. I've never understood Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, or Cardinal Newman, because I think their arguments, such as they are, don't work. Nor is there any need (or so I think) to for them to debate with atheists. They need only believe.

I don't believe in ontological idealism or in higher consciousness either (I don't say they are untrue, I just have no good reason to accept them at this point) but these beliefs are separate to my disbelief in god/s. God of course is just a word and understood by some (Rupert Spira springs to mind) as more primitive language for oneness or higher awareness. — Tom Storm

I'm partial to the thought of an immanent deity, and think that the universe evokes a belief in such a deity, as some Stoics claim (and perhaps Spinoza as well), or as C.S. Peirce suggests with his "Musement." I find that more reasonable than a theist God in that it's less preposterous. But evocation isn't proof and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.

The only way I know of to do that, here, is if those who are atheists respond to the OP saying they refute belief in any form. I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example.

A more interesting question would be whether atheists generally are intent on refuting belief in any and all forms of deity or transcendence. And if so, what motivates them to concern themselves with the beliefs of others. — Janus

I think that question would arise, yes, if that turns out to be the case.

All I can say is that I hope I don’t sound like Jack D Ripper. — Mikie

Well you don't, but I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a laugh, as you see.

Even so, I don't think it's appropriate to blame the problems you note on neoliberalism, just as I don't think it was appropriate to blame communism for the problems of our Great Republic (or for polluting our precious bodily fluids, for that matter). I doubt that government efforts to ban or limit the purchase of guns or opiates will be successful, so I don't see deregulation as the source of their prevalence. Here in God's Favorite Country, we love our guns and our drugs and those of us who want them will find a way to get them, and those who wish to profit from their sale will find a way to provide them.

My personal belief is that the "War on Drugs" is futile and hugely expensive. As for guns our freakish regard for the Second Amendment will always stand in the way of effective regulation.

Both issues are a direct result of neoliberalism. — Mikie

Quite right. Because it saps all of our precious bodily fluids.

You do wonder what the effect must be of digital pornography suddenly appearing in cultures which had previously been characterised by extremely censorious and proscriptive sexual mores, where women are veiled and extramarital sex is punishable by death. — Wayfarer

Yes. I shouldn't assume that Christians alone would condemn pornography. I prefer the view taken of sex in antiquity. Visit Pompeii if you haven't already, and see how the frequent depiction of the phallus (a good luck symbol) and frescoes displaying various sexual acts make modern visitors nervous.

If only Anthony Comstock was here to protect us from it. Or at least John Ashcroft.

I wonder whether this "problem" is peculiarly American. Or perhaps Christian.

Some of you need to watch more non-American films — Maw

Don't miss the Vatican fashion show in Fellini's Roma

In no particular order:

The Duellists (Outstanding swordplay with various weapons, during the Napoleonic Wars; what could be better? Makes me wish I could still fence sabre without hurting myself);
Seven Beauties (The best of Lina Wertmuller's cheerful films);
Fellini's Roma (What can I say? I'm a big fan of Rome);
The Godfather
Citizen Kane
2001: A Space Odyssey
Chinatown
Dr. Strangelove
There Will Be Blood
A Man for All Seasons

When has that ever stopped people doing anything? — Vera Mont

Dum spiro, spero.

Judging the universe is rather like waging war on Neptune, as Gaius Caligula is said to have done. You may judge it as you please, and even be proud of judging, but frankly you can't help but seem rather silly.

What 'status' other than 'Banned' would be appropriate? — Amity

"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other. — Art48

Hmm. So, the situation we should expect if God does not exist is, also, the situation we should expect if God does exist? He would have to exist, I suppose, if he "wants to be discovered." Odd how the failure of religion to convince us God exists somehow establishes that he not only exists, but wants us to believe he does.

Well, the question you asked was "How much power and authorityshould the Pope have?" (Emphasis added). I was raised Catholic, but haven't been a practising one for many years. I'm inclined to say he should have none. Clearly, though, he does have power and authority. What authority and power he should have may be something very different from what authority and power he actually has. They're two different considerations.

How much power and authority should the Pope have? — javi2541997

My personal belief is that the doctrine has its basis in the papal assumption of the title of Pontifex Maximus ("Highest Priest") held by Roman Emperors. As Highest Priest the Emperors had the authority to make final and binding decisions regarding the state religion. Before the Principate, the pontifex maximus had a diminished role. Gratian was the first Roman Emperor to reject the title in deference to the Church, in the late 4th century C.E.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though?

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? — Athena

Well, I was comparing the Roman Stoics (e.g. Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius) to the early Greek Stoics, and specifically Chrysippus. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not at issue. But at least
in regard to practical wisdom and public life in politics, I would think the Roman Stoics would be superior to that trio in some respects, given the fact that Socrates got himself killed by the Athenians, Plato made a fool of himself in Syracuse and Aristotle for about 8 years was the teacher of Alexander, one of history's greatest autocrats who presided over the slaughter of who knows how many unfortunates in his conquests. Many Roman Senators were Stoics, which led them to oppose the injustices of some of the emperors (and got them killed).

I

Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced? — Athena

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire.

Would Nietzsche be a good stoic? — Athena

Nietzsche's Amor Fati is thoroughly Stoic, though he never acknowledged that to be the case, to my knowledge. Elsewhere he famously berated the Stoics in one of his many rants.

I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism? — Athena

There are some fragments of the writings of the Greek Stoics available, but as far as I know we're aware of them only because they're referred to by others. In addition to Zeno, we have some information regarding Cleanthes (Zeno's successor as leader of the Stoa) and Chrysippus, his successor, and quotes from them. You can find the Hymn of Cleanthes easily enough on the Web. Chrysippus is credited with defending Stoicism against its early critics.

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. Also, at least compared to Chrysippus whose focus was on epistemology and logic, and the theory underlying Stoicism, the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. That emphasis makes it more sympathetic to most.

Stoic "apatheia" is freedom from emotional disturbance, not "apathy" as currently defined. Tranquility was valued, as was equanimity. The period of Roman Stoicism was, in fact, a fairly turbulent one in the Empire, including trouble with the Germanic tribes which kept Marcus Aurelius away from Rome for many years, trouble with Parthia, the onset of Christianity and failure of traditional religion, the rise of the mystery religions; the Bar Kochba rebellion in Palestine. Stoicism had a broad appeal, and its most significant Roman adherents included an emperor and a slave.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Really? I had no idea. Perhaps he wasn't a philosopher, then.

God's teeth. Only those lacking a sense of humor would complain of irony. As well complain of wit and the witty.

But, now that I think of it, I can't think of a witty philosopher. Wittgenstein, of course, was notoriously lacking in humor.

I think it was part of an anti-metaphysical/quietist movement which continues to this day, and in that sense remains relevant.

Hilarious...you expect me to say what it is that can't be said.
— Janus
Indeed, there might be a sort of catharsis in the realisation that this is not doable, and perhaps the absence of a something to which "ineffable" refers. — Banno

Where there is no thing, there's nothing to address philosophically. There's no object to be known, and philosophy subsists on objects which can be known and described (in words). So, it pretends there is one.