Unbelievers aren’t quite human, part 2 29 Nov 2010 Cardinal Fang, exemplar of all that is moral, has declared that people without faith have ”nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss”, and “people without religion… are frightened by the future”. “”Australian society will become increasingly coarse and uncaring … if Christian principles are excluded from public discussion”, he said. Meanwhile, his moral Christian church continues to defend child molesters. That is a refined and caring sort of evil, isn’t it? Secularists do not wish to exclude the Christian voice in public discussion; they wish to include the non-Christians. I can see how Fang might get that wrong. He thinks that only the Catholic voice should be heard, so any inclusion of others automatically decreases the God-given right of the Catholic Church to determine how everyone, non-Catholics included, should live. Hat tip: PZ Myers Australian stuff Politics Religion
Religion God of the gaps 1 Feb 201118 Sep 2017 Phil Plait has addressed the incredible inanity of Bill O’Reilly’s comment that the tides prove God. It is, as Phil notes, a classic “God of the gaps” argument. I thought I should reprise the original source text of that criticism. It is from Henry Drummond’s book Ascent of Man in… Read More
History It's a mystery 28 May 2010 Since the earliest times in recorded Graecoroman history, there have been mystery cults. Every cultic practice for a god had secret rituals and spaces, and there were a number of mystery religions, known as the Eleusinian mysteries, that developed that we know little about. In an excellent review of a… Read More
Epistemology Rapture and risk 22 May 201122 Jun 2018 So, if you are reading this, then the Rapture didn’t take you. I spent a fair bit of May 21 Tweeting various ways in which it didn’t happen in Australia. A bit of harmless fun, but I noted something as I did so: every so often I had a twinge… Read More
But doesn’t Catholic mean universal? Thus by definition whatever Cardinal Fang and his brothers in purple say is the whole of that which is to be heard. Isn’t it? By the way, your post is very strident and shrill.
Catholic with a big “C” is a title of the Roman Church (Roman Catholic), opposed to catholic with a little “c”, which means universal. Small subtly, but a big difference.
One need not be a Kantian to believe that ethics is rooted in the recognition of the obligations that go along with our relative autonomy as rational agents. To the extent that religion insists on our lack of this autonomy, to the extent that it really is based on what Schleiermacher called the “sentiment of absolute dependence,” it replaces an adult sense of responsibility with the childish desire to please mommy and daddy. The debate we should be having is whether it is possible for religious individuals to be fully moral human beings. Is it an accident that priests and ministers so often display really appalling behavior?
I don’t think it is either an accident or a significant point: religion, like all human activities, relies upon status and the use of power. Some religiou speople are quite decent moral agents, and some are not. I suspect the averages are about ordinary for most religions. Bu tthe reason why I object to the abuse of Catholic power is that they seem, in the hierarchy, to be incapable of expressing moral views without also expressing that their views are the sole, absolute, and true form of morality, and to denigrate all else. I expect them to assert their own views; I do not expect them to treat all others as subhuman for failing to agree. Other religions do this as well (a good many Muslims, several varieties of Protestant, and of course Marxist-Leninists), but few so perniciously and ubiquitously as the Catholics in my country.
Fang? Srsly? Is that for real or are you just channeling Phyllis Diller’s term of endearment for her husband?
Outbursts like this really confuse me. When Pell says things like:”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.” I have no idea what he means. Is he the Madman proclaiming the sadness one ought to feel at the death of God? I just don’t fathom the existential crisis he’s charging unbelievers with.
I remember meeting a well known conservative philosopher and, after a while, coming to realise that he’s just a scared little boy begging for approval and protection against the night.
Cardinal Fang, exemplar of all that is moral, has declared that people without faith have ”nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss”, and “people without religion… are frightened by the future”. Shirley (RIP Leslie Nielsen) it is quite the opposite. It is believers who are frightened of the prospect of an indifferent Universe and cover the abyss with a confection of more palatable beliefs.
Years ago I read an otherwise-forgettable fantasy novel in which the arch-villain is an ancient nasty named Pel who commands an army of the undead. Whenever I hear about your bloke, from some reason, that’s the association it invokes.
Wasn’t there a Cardinal Fang in the Python’s ‘Spanish Inquisition’ sketch? You know, the one about the Comfy Chair. In response to Konrad Talmont-Kaminski’s comment “I remember meeting a well known conservative philosopher and, after a while, coming to realise that he’s just a scared little boy begging for approval and protection against the night.” I had a similar experience when engaging a prominent creationist in correspondence. This person had been repeatedly quote-mining me for his own ends. I didn’t adopt the PZian hellfire and damnation approach – I was as polite and courteous and helpful as I could be – I wanted to see what made this bloke tick, and as far as I could make out, he was, simply, frightened. A very frightened little bunny.
We are nothing beyond the constructs we construct to cover the abyss. I kind of like that. I don’t see how it distinguishes between believers and not believers, but it has a nice angsty feeling to it.
That’s all philosophizy and stuff. Cool. You inspired me to see Harry Potter sooner rather than later, so I went today. I really liked the change in tone and place, just as I did in the books. Don’t you want a bag like Hermione’s?
I’d be ecstatic just to have that camping kit (which Hermione presumably carries around in the bag). They don’t show it, but I bet it magically self-pitches, makes the beds and everything, and then self-strikes and folds itself up when they move on…. Good movie; can’t wait for the finale (no spoilers please; I haven’t read the books).
This is a pretty typical Catholic response. They often assert that atheists ought to be sad because we’ve lost the promise of salvation, insisting as well that we haven’t fully comprehended the finest nuances of Thomist philosophy. It seems not to have occurred to them that most of us arrived at unbelief by different paths.
Whenever I hear some fine upstanding religious figure telling me how much better their religion is, all I can think of is “Crelm Toothpaste”.
Why are you calling him Cardinal Fang rather than, say, Cardinal Biggles? Is it because of Fang’s fierce expression, or does he actually resemble Terry Gilliam?
Mostly because it has four letters like Pell (in fact I sometimes can’t recall his actual name), and because I always feel like the Inquisition he’s calling down upon us all is like unto a Comfy Pillow.
I guess it’s just because I’m getting saggy, but I do believe SOMETHING should be covering the abyss. Me, I’m only rarely terrified, but never enough to just start making stuff up. I’ll take what comes.
Here’s a suggestion, instead of falling in line with the custom of according religious industry leaders their eclesiastical titles, why not just refer to Mr. Pell, or Mr Ratzinger, or Mr Williams? It doesn’t seem so weighty when a mere Mr. Pell says ”nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss” does it?