This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty - Comments

mmurray's Avatar Comment 1 by mmurray

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:52:42 UTC | #946309

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 2 by sunbeamforjeebus

Nicely done Richard and if you look at the comments fillowing the article you can see that the hornet's nest is suitably stirred.Is it not still amazing that so much bile can be generated just by an outsider asking exactly what it is necessary to believe, to render one a catlick? As I understand the vatican's edicts,they will decide the dogma one must believe to be a catlick.If one does not believe the dogma,by the vatican's tenets one ain't a catlick!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:05:15 UTC | #946313

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 3 by strangebrew

When Ireland finally crawls into the sunlight from under the dark dank and foetid mitre's suffocating shadow then one can truly say with some justification that the RCC is finished for good!

Almost two thirds have rejected the theist absolute claim and accept the allegorical. The genii is out of the ecclesiastical bottle, to reject the substantive katolik' dogma that transubstantiation is not what they say it is but what they do not say it is...is a serrated dagger to the catholic heart...that is gonna hurt!

To lose that land their favoured jewel in their gaudy tarnished battered crown will be their solemn death knell...and I do believe it is ringing now, faintly for sure...but gaining cadence and volume with every swing!

One generation away from meltdown...maybe two....but no more...but if the accident prone run of revelations of abuse, cover up, baby selling, homosexual bashing, women hating, massive financial irregularity, lies, and damned lies that reaches into the very black heart of the magisterium HQ continues as it is...that time scale may well be a lot shorter then everyone thinks...

And there is no indication it is slowing...none what so ever.

Even my fundamentalist heretical atheist jaundiced view in attitude is challenged on a regular basis, when it is assumed that they can delve no lower in crass immoral unethical criminal acts...only to learn the very next day that they have easily surpassed that bench mark and gone far deeper by quite a margin...the barrel appears to be infinitely deep...this might take a while....but as such an evil and malevolent scourge they will be finished well before we get anywhere near the bottom to see what lurks there methinks.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:26:43 UTC | #946315

beebub's Avatar Comment 4 by beebub

As usual a journalist covering a talk given by Richard covers one tiny element of what was discussed and picks the few quotes from the whole evening which could be construed as controvertial. The evening covered many different topics from biology to evolution to science to history as well as religion and many other issues. This was in answer to a direct question on the survey in the Irish Times. It was a most entertaining evening, backed up by the warm response received.

On the off chance that you read this Richard, I don't know if you realised, but one eejit on the night sort of tackled you on using the term 'Saint' Paul and 'Holy' scripture, saying that we shouldn't be so deferential to organised religion and that we'd hopefully see the back of them some day. He said this having sucked up to you saying how great you are.

This chap's name is John J. May who has written a lunatic book called 'The Origin of Specious Nonsense' which calls evolution a hoax and a fraud. He was in the news some time ago because this loopy book was supposed to have been launched by Conor Lenihan then then Irish Minister for Science! Lenihan backed out after the story broke.

It's a pity May doesn't have the courage of his convitions to have taken you on that night on the subject of evolution, however maybe he's smarter than i give him credit for as he knows you'd have wiped the floor with him. It was easier for him to tell you how great you are!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:35:11 UTC | #946317

Metamag's Avatar Comment 5 by Metamag

The same thing was polled in Croatia a decade ago, most didn't even believe in resurrection...

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:35:20 UTC | #946318

PBrain's Avatar Comment 6 by PBrain

I was at the national concert hall Tuesday night,a real pleasure to have Mr.Dawkins speak to a public audience in Ireland,and about time.It wasn't sold out,only because the NCH has a limited number of seats available online ,which gives the impression there's nothing left when it says sold out on the website.I knew plenty more people who would have come if they knew there were seats available,how and ever, it was about 85% full. Please don't hesitate in making the trip again, but also, try and avoid idiotic talk shows where you may be pitted against someone with substandard arguments and ridiculous questions,even though there was a couple of cringeworthy ones the other night,amongst a few good ones... I hope the enthusiasm and turnout spoke for itself. Connemara awaits...

PB

ie : the guy who said this was the 1st time he'd ever asked anyone for an autograph,and probably the last

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:37:31 UTC | #946319

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 7 by drumdaddy

Richard is speaking quite directly to tens of millions of silent atheists. Speak up! Stand up!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:41:51 UTC | #946320

Sample's Avatar Comment 8 by Sample

What a strident photo.

Mike

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:43:30 UTC | #946321

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 9 by Mr DArcy

As usual, the Catholic critics of Richard on the IT site, attack his personality, his manners, his Englishness, his abrasiveness, his cheek, his ignorance, - but not his theology!

The nearest any of them got was to claim that transubstantiation doesn't mean what Richard says it means! As Richard is quoting from the Catholic dogma, they're rather shooting their own feet!

If in doubt attack the messenger!

Paper tigers, - too close to the bonfire of history.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:09:09 UTC | #946324

Jay G's Avatar Comment 10 by Jay G

This is nothing new. Lots of people who call themselves Catholic reject teachings of the Church they find objectionable. I, as a Jew, have always wondered how a person can call himself a Catholic and, at the same time, argue against the rules of the Church.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:23:01 UTC | #946326

DrDroid's Avatar Comment 11 by DrDroid

In my experience Catholics, and religious people in general, really don't subject their professed beliefs to much critical analysis, at least beyond a certain point. They've been raised in a certain religion and it just feels right to them. Attempts to question their beliefs are countered with the "hands over the ears" tactic. It takes courage and a questioning mind to reject early childhood teachings (but it does happen in some small percentage of people).

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:41:04 UTC | #946329

Grundibular's Avatar Comment 12 by Grundibular

You'd have thought the decades of systematic sexual child abuse and cover ups would have been enough to shake people's faith in that organisation.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:03:29 UTC | #946331

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 13 by Alan4discussion

Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

Optimist!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:40:09 UTC | #946335

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 14 by God fearing Atheist

In the comments under the IT article is this:-

John Robinson

One problem with this question being viewed as a shibboleth is that most people misunderstand what the doctrine means. It is based on Aristotelian categories which distinguish the substance of something (its essence independent of all physical properties) from its accidents (all its physical properties). Transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance (spiritual presence is probably the best way to put this in contemporary terms) of Christ but the accidents remain the same i.e the physical properties of bread and wine remain the same and the physical properties of the body and blood of Christ are not involved, but Christ's essence i.e spiritual presence is.

I was wondering how the Aristotelian hypothesis fitted into the atomic theory of matter? Perhaps the great Aristotle was talking complete bollocks on this subject, and the RCC are maintaining his hypothesis well past its sell-by date?

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:52:50 UTC | #946336

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 15 by Schrodinger's Cat

Prof Richard Dawkins says he was intrigued by an Irish Times poll showing 62 per cent of Catholics believe the bread and wine blessed during Mass `only represents the body and blood?

I'm amazed anyone ever thought otherwise. Even in the Biblical text it is quite clearly an allegorical symbolism of remembrance. Nowhere does it say it is literally 'the body of Christ'. It's just another example of how the Catholic Church has tacked on a whole bunch of extra crap......transubstantiation, 'saints', worshipping the virgin Mary, etc etc that the founders of the church would not have recognised.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:01:05 UTC | #946339

Marcus Small's Avatar Comment 16 by Marcus Small

I suppose for some, it would be nice to live in world where words mean what the dictionary says they mean. I rather fear, no, hope, that words are not like that.

Neither are people.

Of course tidy minded, black and white, 'either or types' find that infuriating and even inconvenient. I am sure the Vatican also finds pinks and oranges, greys, greens and purples, those 'both and', & some what messy minded types, equally as infuriating.

If belonging depended upon an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, if a religious identity rested upon a positivist attitude to doctrine, then Richard would be right.

I don't think that belonging and identity depend or rest upon what some think and perhaps would like them to depend and rest on. I am not sure they ever have.

'Liminal knowing,

Delights not in hard borders,

Lines... bind, minds questing.'

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:51:55 UTC | #946354

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 17 by strangebrew

.Comment 14 by God fearing Atheist

John Robinson..

One problem with this question being viewed as a shibboleth is that most people misunderstand what the doctrine means

Including clueless fools that make it up as they go along...

The Modern Catholic Dictionary:

Transubstantiation:

The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term itself was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis, “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantio, change of substance.)

Some fools should really learn their own doctrine before opening pious gobs. But let them waddle in their own crap, they make a funny sight misunderstanding their own dogma!

I just crack up at the mental image of a gaggle of righteous prigs nodding in enthusiastic agreement with a pompous mouth piece, that obviously made it up, and without at least checking with a 'reputable' Catholic source.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:04:32 UTC | #946356

Sharpur's Avatar Comment 18 by Sharpur

This is just going to be a re-hashing of the previous poll on British 'christians'. Point out to theists that if they don't hold certain beliefs central to creed X, then it makes no sense to call themselves members of creed X and all you get is: "Ooh, Dawkins is trying to tell people what to believe. He's so arrogant. Atheism is just like a religion and Dawkins is it's pope." On and bloody on.

I'm glad to see Catholicism - indeed all religion - on the decline in Ireland. I used to wonder just what it would take to loosen the stranglehold. Then RC church answered that question for me in the most revolting manner imaginable. Judging from the article comments though, there are still plenty of people in Ireland who have catholicism like they have halitosis: You know you can't catch it from them, but it still makes you wish they'd keep their mouths shut!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:07:41 UTC | #946358

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 19 by irate_atheist

Comment 16 by Marcus Small -

I suppose for some, it would be nice to live in world where words mean what the dictionary says they mean. I rather fear, no, hope, that words are not like that.

Actually, words are like that, otherwise they are meaningless noises.

Of course tidy minded, black and white, 'either or types' find that infuriating and even inconvenient.

Those of us who prefer facts to flummery, elucidation to equivocation, sophistication to sophistry?

The sort of people who point out that the Emperor has no clothes?

And are damn proud to do so, on all counts.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:32:34 UTC | #946362

JHJEFFERY's Avatar Comment 20 by JHJEFFERY

Comment 15 by Schrodinger's Cat

I'm amazed anyone ever thought otherwise. Even in the Biblical text it is quite clearly an allegorical symbolism of remembrance. Nowhere does it say it is literally 'the body of Christ'

Quite right. He said, "Eat this in remembrance of me." I suspect that if he wanted to be taken literally he would have offered up his liver or a piece of his flank steak instead of a piece of bread.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:58:42 UTC | #946365

green and dying's Avatar Comment 21 by green and dying

Most Catholics use contraceptives and loads have abortions... surely none of them can really believe the Catholic Church has religious authority over them or they would do everything the Church says? Or do they just believe they'll be forgiven? If so can't they do whatever they want and be forgiven?

It seems like practically every Catholic apart from priests and nuns is just culturally Catholic - they like the ceremony and tradition and that's it.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:00:10 UTC | #946366

Quine's Avatar Comment 22 by Quine

Re: Comment 14 by God fearing Atheist, yes, as soon as they say "Aristotelian categories" you have to stop them and demand evidence. When they ask, "Evidence for what?" you say. "Evidence that Aristotle is correct." Sit back and enjoy the "deer caught in the headlights" expression you will get as a result.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:01:53 UTC | #946367

Marcus Small's Avatar Comment 23 by Marcus Small

Irate, When you here the word 'Hell' what concept does it signify to you?

In what way does that concept correspond to the concepts conveyed by, gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol?

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:08:41 UTC | #946369

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 24 by Alan4discussion

Comment 18 by Sharpur

Judging from the article comments though, there are still plenty of people in Ireland who have catholicism like they have halitosis: You know you can't catch it from them, but it still makes you wish they'd keep their mouths shut!

Looking at those comments restored my faith in the Irish Jokes!

It has come to light, in the ongoing investigations and litigations of sexual abuses by Irish clergy, that the Irish bishops took part in a cover-up of the abusers specifically because of instructions from the Vatican contained in a 1997 letter, made public this week.
The Pope in 1997 was the widely popular and beloved John Paul II, who is currently being fast-tracked by the current pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, for sainthood.http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/103226/20110120/sexual-abuse-pope-priests.htm?page=all

Quite often Catholics make statues of their "saints", but on this occasion (as the old Irish joke goes) they can't find a plank thick enough!

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:12:28 UTC | #946371

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 25 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 20 by JHJEFFERY

Quite right. He said, "Eat this in remembrance of me." I suspect that if he wanted to be taken literally he would have offered up his liver or a piece of his flank steak instead of a piece of bread.

Or, as Jeebus would've have known ahead of time in order to leave instructions. Don't put me in that tomb, get Javier Krahe in to show you "how to cook Jesus Christ".

Begsy his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...fif, fif, fif, fif, fif,fif....

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:37:22 UTC | #946375

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 26 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 23 by Marcus Small

In what way does that concept correspond to the concepts conveyed by, gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol?

Hell is not 'gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol'...it's not even spelt the same let alone be synonymous.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:40:25 UTC | #946376

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 27 by Red Dog

I know what many Catholics will likely say in response: "the church is made up of the congregation, not just the pope and his edicts" and if they were Unitarians or Quakers or many other faiths they would have a point. But one of the defining features of Catholicism is that its a very hierarchical system. If you don't believe that the pope is infallible,etc. you have no business calling yourself a Catholic. One of the most ironic things I find is that people go into mass every Sunday and recite back all the queues without even thinking about what they are saying.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:07:45 UTC | #946380

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 28 by strangebrew

Comment 24 by Alan4discussion

I get a slight whiff of blame shifting here onto a dead pope... No doubt JP2 was up to his sweaty little armpits in the knowledge of what was going on. But he was basically doolally for the last decade what with the shakes and what have you! He was in no fit state to find a pew in a church let alone orchestrate a response to a global scandal.

No that report has a definite tilt, I can almost taste it. It is probably factual as far as it goes...but Benny is looking to get out from under! And JP2 is his out!

Cos Benny is up to his piggy little ears in cover up and manipulation and has been since the Vatican 2 fiasco at least in the 60's Anything that JP2 knew went through Benny first...bet ya bottom dollar on that...de dude had ambition.

I notice it is dated Jan of 2011...so methinks they had actually begun covering Bennies scrawny little bum as fast as they could throw crap in the air!

But I am not convinced it is going to be a slam dunk for them, seems haphazard if not sporadic...which reminded me of this recent article

They are seemingly not doing a great job...over 18 months later the RCC...read Benny...is implicated in so much more no wonder there was a vague unsubstantiated rumour he was quitting by next year!

Or is it?

When bookmakers get involved best to take a little notice methinks!.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:20:13 UTC | #946383

Sean_W's Avatar Comment 29 by Sean_W

Comment 16 by Marcus Small

Well I hope so! It's bad enough being illiterate and finding that you need a dictionary for every other word in some post or book written by smart folks. I don't need to find out that a dictionary doesn't know what a word means either.

Illiterate dictionaries! It's a god damn conspiracy, the smarts, they're giving none of it away.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:21:49 UTC | #946384

Marcus Small's Avatar Comment 30 by Marcus Small

Comment 26 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 23 by Marcus Small

In what way does that concept correspond to the concepts conveyed by, gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol?

Hell is not 'gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol'...it's not even spelt the same let alone be synonymous.

I think that's my point. Words are signs which convey concepts, sometimes more than one. Moreover they don't always convey those concepts unambiguously. With regard to gehenna, Tartarus, hades and sheol, two are Greek, one is Hebrew the other is a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic word.

All of them are translated by the English word hell.

Human self identity like the words we use to describe it, is not as easy to pin down.

Human beings like their words and ideas will not submit easily to identifiers of another's convenience.

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:25:12 UTC | #946385