Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-15-2003, 05:18 AM

A friend in Australia emailed a letter from The Age.
This link goes to all the letters for that day; the one I'm interested in is entitled "Steeped in Superstion" and is by John Malcolm.

Quote:

When Archbishop Pell stops celebrating the birth of Jesus at the solstice, and his death at a date calculated by the phases of the moon, and deletes references to the Star of Bethlehem, I might begin to take seriously his claim to be distant from astrology. Let Pell stop worshipping in dark places by candlelight, waving incense and splashing holy water about with magic gestures, dressed in robes and chanting incantations, then I will take seriously his claim to be free of superstition.

Let him strike out of the New Testament any reference to the laying of hands for curative purposes, and I will take seriously his rejection of reiki. As for the "desire for power over time, history and, in the last analysis, other human beings", one would only have to add real estate, to have a pretty good description of the Catholic Church.

This letter appears to have been written in response to this article about the church's attitude to new-age superstitions.

Quote:

Dr Pell warned that if Christianity declined radically in Australia - though there was evidence that the rise in unbelief had levelled off - most people would not turn to science and reason.

"They will be superstitious, choosing bits and pieces from a mishmash of the great religious traditions and New Age recipes," he wrote.

I have long found the catholic church's opposition to "superstitions" somewhat ironic in view of their own practices.

sullster · 06-15-2003, 09:50 AM

I always had the impression that the RCC has been more interested in controlling the superstitions by allowing belief in a collection of certain ones, which actually add to the church's power over the masses. The RCC has wisely admitted that humans are naturally attracted to irrational superstitions and it is better to fill this need with their own, than having the masses believing in way out stuff that doesn't get them to come to Mass.

The RCC's antipathy to newage beliefs is an example of this idea. They can't control or weave into their theology the wacky stuff of newage beliefs, thus they are against them.

The RCC is disingenuous when it says it is opposed to superstition. They have no problem with absurd miracles to make saints, blood from statues or mary sightings on a frosty window. These superstitions are good for the church, the newage superstitions are not.

06-15-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sullster

The RCC is disingenuous when it says it is opposed to superstition. They have no problem with absurd miracles to make saints, blood from statues or mary sightings on a frosty window. These superstitions are good for the church, the newage superstitions are not.

It's the reality behind them that counts, sullster. You should know by now that whatever exists in the imagination of Catholics must exist in reality and this same cannot always be said for New Age superstitions. Even if it does it excludes the avenue to reach the this reality and so enlightenment will never be theirs. It'll just remain hokus pokus until it gets boring and to keep it exciting new perversions are added.

wade-w · 06-15-2003, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
It's the reality behind them that counts, sullster. You should know by now that whatever exists in the imagination of Catholics must exist in reality and this same cannot always be said for New Age superstitions.

Italics added by me

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

06-15-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wade-w
Italics added by me

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

Glad to have made your day but this happens to be true. Whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality (yes, such as 'pink' and 'elephants'), and from here the icons and images presented by the Church just bear witness to truth.

Thor Q. Mada · 06-15-2003, 09:19 PM

Hi Amos,

I hope you are being sarcastic?(which incidentally is not approved by his holyness!!)

Thor Q. Mada · 06-15-2003, 09:26 PM

Just as another thought, this same person, (the pope) that doesn't like sarcasm has made the institution he leads morally bankrupt by his actions (or lack thereoff) during his "reign". Such as there are a)phedophilia, and his lackluster behavior. b)His faillure to take the consequences of his age and health and resign or retire gracefully (which would be expected from any CEO of any company-and don't tell me he was appointed by god, and the CEO's are not, because the world has meanwhile woken up to the tribulations within the vatican.)
c) His madrush toward appointing the maximum number of saints, all of them fabricated on instruction of the church, as if he wants to prove the existence of god to himself by proving there are saints and miracles.

Lohan · 06-15-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
Whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality

Is this taking the Ontological Argument to its logical conclusion or something

? Because I must say that right now I am imagining twenty billion dollars materializing in my living room and so far reality has not heeded my wishes!

06-15-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thor Q. Mada
Hi Amos,

I hope you are being sarcastic?(which incidentally is not approved by his holyness!!)

Not really. Can you think of something that does not exist in reality? If you think you can how would you describe it to me without using conventional words?

The images presented by the church are like metaphors and each one has its own story to tell. In fact, they are more like archetypal metaphors and therefore have a story to tell.

Lohan · 06-15-2003, 09:34 PM

Ahh, well that makes a little more sense, but there's a flaw in your reasoning, besides the fact that I can think (and many others have thought of) many fairy tale monsters like pixies and dragons that do not exist at all in reality.

But anyway, what you are doing is making perceived reality and absolute reality equal. Insofar as the concept behind the "metaphor" as you call it, or superstition as others call it, exists in the minds of those who believe it, you are saying then therefore exists in reality. Although in a way it does, as it exists as a configuration of connected neurons and such in the brains of those who believe it, it does not exist in external, or absolute reality as I have called it. It is merely a perception. The icons and images of the Catholic Church are a testament not to truth, but to the perceptions and biases of those who created them. Much like God really.

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2003, 09:50 AM	#2
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	I always had the impression that the RCC has been more interested in controlling the superstitions by allowing belief in a collection of certain ones, which actually add to the church's power over the masses. The RCC has wisely admitted that humans are naturally attracted to irrational superstitions and it is better to fill this need with their own, than having the masses believing in way out stuff that doesn't get them to come to Mass. The RCC's antipathy to newage beliefs is an example of this idea. They can't control or weave into their theology the wacky stuff of newage beliefs, thus they are against them. The RCC is disingenuous when it says it is opposed to superstition. They have no problem with absurd miracles to make saints, blood from statues or mary sightings on a frosty window. These superstitions are good for the church, the newage superstitions are not.

06-15-2003, 09:19 PM	#6
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	Hi Amos, I hope you are being sarcastic?(which incidentally is not approved by his holyness!!)

06-15-2003, 09:26 PM	#7
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	Just as another thought, this same person, (the pope) that doesn't like sarcasm has made the institution he leads morally bankrupt by his actions (or lack thereoff) during his "reign". Such as there are a)phedophilia, and his lackluster behavior. b)His faillure to take the consequences of his age and health and resign or retire gracefully (which would be expected from any CEO of any company-and don't tell me he was appointed by god, and the CEO's are not, because the world has meanwhile woken up to the tribulations within the vatican.) c) His madrush toward appointing the maximum number of saints, all of them fabricated on instruction of the church, as if he wants to prove the existence of god to himself by proving there are saints and miracles.

06-15-2003, 09:34 PM	#10
Lohan Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Somewhere far beyond Posts: 57	Ahh, well that makes a little more sense, but there's a flaw in your reasoning, besides the fact that I can think (and many others have thought of) many fairy tale monsters like pixies and dragons that do not exist at all in reality. But anyway, what you are doing is making perceived reality and absolute reality equal. Insofar as the concept behind the "metaphor" as you call it, or superstition as others call it, exists in the minds of those who believe it, you are saying then therefore exists in reality. Although in a way it does, as it exists as a configuration of connected neurons and such in the brains of those who believe it, it does not exist in external, or absolute reality as I have called it. It is merely a perception. The icons and images of the Catholic Church are a testament not to truth, but to the perceptions and biases of those who created them. Much like God really. I hope this makes some kind of sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.