The Pope's Faulty Thesis (in regards to Islam)

One might believe that, but there's no necessity to believe it. Evolutionism makes God dispensable. This is what the Pope fears. It's not a strawman.

I wonder whether the pope saw his lecture as a public presentation in the ordinary sense. If it was intended only for his immediate audience, he might not have expected any muslims to have been present to be offended, or at least not the ignorant kind that would be offended. I'm surprised that a seminar at a university is being pasted all over the place. This looks like malice to me. Are there troublemakers shadowing the pope in the hope of picking up things they can use to make trouble?

I think this is off topic - so I'll try to keep it brief.I, like you, think that its reasonable enough for the pope to lump evolution and abiogenesis together for his purposes. He can do that if he likes. I also think that you are right that strawman might have been a poor word choice.I agree that some people might see God as an optional extra if they accept evolution and chemical abiogenesis to be true. But I disagree that this is necessarily the only course of action that a theist can take; personally, I think it would be a mistake. I don't think the existence of God becomes any less likely if we decide that life arose from natural processes at some point rather than god reaching down and shuffling carbon and hydrogen atoms like a magic trick. An omnipotent God who sets everything up and lets it roll is just as hands on as an interventionist god, because everything goes exactly according to plan.Those who didn't want to admit that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe saw heliocentrism as a challenge to their notion of the Almighty. Now as our notion of God has adapted, heliocentrism is largely an irrelevance.I'd argue that its similar with evolution and abiogenesis. These concepts challege people's notion of what God is and does, but there is still plenty of room for a pretty coherent notion of God that takes into account that life didn't necessarily originate with a Kazzam! one day when some omnipotent being felt like doing something a bit different.As I mentioned in the previous message, my hunch is that that if you play up the "preplanned" nature of the universe, God is made no more of an irrelevance than when earth just became the third rock from the sun.Of course I want to hear what you say in response, but I might just leave off responding myself unless I can see a way of tying it back into the discussion of the pope's recent speech. (Unless you can see a way.)Cheers, T x

Now that's a relevant point.The simple answer is that I don't know. All I can offer is this really: whether it was done on purpose or not, through this incident the standing of the pope has probably been done the world of good in the eyes of moderate, agnostic, and atheist Europeans. People, in other words, that he isn't usually able to reach out to at all. In this light it could be viewed as actually quite beneficial to the pope, rather than harmful.Here is Benedict, the voice of reason, being shouted down by lots of scary looking people on TV. People have been killed. If moderate Europeans were to be offered the choice between Christianity and Islam after this, and the cartoon incident, and plenty more to come, then they probably aren't going to go with the apparently foaming nutjobs.What I found ironic, and prompted this topic was that there seemed to be some weaknesses in the reasoning of the voice of reason.But back to your query. I'm not sure how you'd find out how this story was picked up by the world's media. If we could find out with a sufficient degree of certainty that it wasn't the work of the Catholic church but some shady pope-follower that the Vatican didn't know about, then that would shoot my admittedly very speculative argument down in flaming, smoke-belching ruins.

You've made an interesting parallel with heliocentrism. Might be worth a new topic?(definitely off-topic here).Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Yes - I'd be really interested in taking that discussion further if you are. Would you or anyone else mind doing an OP? If you haven't the time I might be able to have a go at some point in the near future.

I'll give it a try.

I agree. What I meant by brick and steel, is that neither are relevant to going with chocolate, to eat, because brick and steel are both not compatibley edible. Likewise, neither Christianity or Or Islam are compatible with rational thinking, as they both show irrational beliefs.(I should have made this clearer, sorry Tusk' me old bud). My only point was that at this present time in history, it's extremists who are Muslim, that are the main problem, and they seem to be a problem that's not going away. It's not Islamaphobia, to claim that there is violence associated with Muslim religious heroes. For all I know, jihad, and intepretations of it, give the recipient an idea that one should be a forceful Muslim. I disagree with any religious group forcing it's crap onto those who are free, innocent secularists. Any religious violence is a problem. Good point. But no one can dispute the the Muslim extremists are the prevailent and prolific ones these days. As I said, I don't see Buddhists crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands. I should have pointed out that there are also thousands of Muslims that don't do this. Generally, we see the Muslim extremists as the most prolific group. If it was Christians, then I'd mention them, as I am not partial concerning those who are violent. For example, in this case, I certainly acknowledge that the none-religous are an example to the religious.

That whole section is presented in the context of a historical dialog that took place around 1391 and as he admits, recorded from one point of view. He is leading up to a major discussion on the relationship between Religion and Reason, a point he begins to develop and elaborate on in the next paragraph.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here is a classic example of what the Pope is speaking out against. This quote shows someone who is disconnected from reason, totally out of touch with reason to the point where he cannot see the contradictions in his own words.Here the author claims that some imaginary group he labels as "liberals" attacks Christians and in the same breath claims they support Catholics.It is exactly that religious mindset shown in Message 28 that the Pope is speaking about in the address.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's swell. Every major city in the US still has a Chinatown, and a Little Italy. Somehow, we avoided becoming adjuncts to either of those countries, but that didn't stop the complaining of the racists then, either.The fact that you can go downtown and get a decent taco isn't evidence that they're not assimilating. The studies are very clear that within two generations Mexican immigrant families are as American as Bluejays baseball and the enchilada supreme. They speak fluent English, they're moving in the same circles, they're inhabiting roughly the same economic strata. Almost nobody assimilates faster than Mexican immigrant populations.If you're worried about a non-assimilating population, look to the Muslims. I know that in Minnesota the Somalian immigrants are still practicing female genital mutilation amongst their daughters, and it's pretty clear in Europe that a lot of Muslims believe that, no matter where they immigrate, they have a right to force that culture to adopt Muslim traditions, no matter what that country had in mind for itself. Well, what do you expect? Their employers refuse to pay them a living wage, so they wind up on welfare.Look, if you're pissed off about it, target the employers who are taking advantage of these people. Don't demonize good people who are simply trying to do right by their families. People have a right to do what it takes not to starve. Sounds like assimilation to me, in the country with the largest incarcerated porportion worldwide. I'm actually a classical liberal, in the sense that I believe that the freedom of the individual should be at a maximum, and that the purpose of the government is to restrait itself and corporations from infringing on that freedom wherever possible. The rise of American political Christian fascism and the spread of fanatical Islam are the two greatest threats to that freedom that I can percieve. No surprise that they're both driven by religion.

you know, Mill (I think it was him) was a classical liberal, and he had a phrase for conservatives:All stupid (or is ignorant a better term?) people are conservatives. There's a second part, that applies to very few people, of which you aren't. Ever wonder why the lesser educated (aware, whatever) tend to be conservative?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I think the answer to the pope's question, quoted in your previous post is to be found in the very next sentence, i.e.: I don't think that he is in any doubt that God is and can only be reasonable. To be reasonable, in his terms, is to be consistent with rational thought. To be consistent with rational thought is to allow people to decide themselves which religion to follow, sure, but it is also to be comprehensible to humans as good and not to be capricious.So although he is referring to a historical set of circumstances in his consideration of the Christian emperor's discussion, I think his quote from Khoury -- when he draws a contrast with an Islamic god who is so powerful that he is not even bound by rationality -- suggests a belief that Islam cannot be explored with the same kind of rational enquiry that Christianity can, that Islam, with a god at its centre who is so powerful he can do four contradictions before breakfast, isn't as rational as Christianity.To me his whole thesis is that theology in general is a subject that can and should be discussed and explored rationally, in a collegiate context, and that Christianity, with its profound links with Hellenistic thought... ...is in a uniquely strong position to be engaged with rationally.In his discussion of voluntarism of the late middle ages, he attempts to distance the modern church and the ancient church from such thinking, and equates it with Ibn Hazn's Islamic god and in the same breath.It seems fairly clear to me that through the piece as a whole he is trying to weave a nexus of Christianity, Europe, rational enquiry and learning.What does the speech contrast this with? Personally I think its the other religion that gets a mention in the speech. I think its the religion that goes crazy over cartoons.If you don't buy it then that's fair enough. But I think it is significant that the pope has gone up in the estimation of moderate Europeans. His opposition to Turkey's membership of the EU will have been strengthened.If he didn't do it on purpose, I imagine that he feels his long-term interests may well have been very well served.

I can see where you might gather that, but feel that he carries it forward to deal specifically with Christianity today as opposed to Islam.Beginning with: he goes on to explain where he sees the threat today, and his discussion is with Christian Theology. and summing it up in:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I certainly agree that Islam is currently percieved in this country, and probably all western countries, to be the religion most likely to breed murderous fanatics.Maybe it is; I'm not poo-pooing that notion.But I'm not happy with it. Is there something inherent in Islam that makes its followers more likely to kill people than other known brand religions? I think you have to take the prevailing social and economic trends into consideration as well, and to do so muddies the waters too much to make any grand pronouncements.If, as you claim, the Muslim extremists are the main problem then I can only assume that you are entering into some kind of numbers game. Perhaps "atrocities caused per annum" or "total deaths". If you total up all the deaths in the world caused by terrorists of all the major religions and you see this year that the most have been killed by those proporting to be muslim, how much inference can you draw?I think this kind of approach could only be reductive and misleading. Just because McVey only killed 168 people in a bomb doesn't mean that his ideology wasn't more poisonous and corrupting than the particular brand of militant Islam that Atta subscribed to.Just because nuts affiliated with Al-Quaeda are killing people doesn't mean that militant Hindus who attack Christians and prevent their freedom of worship are excused.I think that religious fundamentalism of every hue is the enemy of secularism, and that to single out those who can best manipulate a globalised mass-media is potentially very dangerous.