Comments by Dr Benway

1951. God Hates the World

Comment #51959 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 5:00 pm

BAEOZ:

Is there nothing the bucolic bird will not do?

As a beacon of honor yourself, my Tazmanian friend, you know that one is sometimes called to do what must be done, however difficult and thankless the task.

1952. God Hates the World

Comment #51952 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 4:01 pm

scottishgeologist:

Dr Benway, the believers who claim to object to this sort of thing actually believe a lot of it.

Crap. In haste I flew past your point SG. So my revised post:

I suspect you're right, SG. And what ought we to think of people who hold many of the same notions as Phelps, but pretend they don't? Might there be any lower form of life on earth?

All honest men must poop upon the heads of these vile beings. This is an inescapable moral duty. Clearly. At every opportunity. Poop poop poop.

How do we spot 'em? My proposal: Ask the believers in question if they're willing to tell people like Phelps: "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE." If they won't say that, they may need fertilizin'.

1953. God Hates the World

Comment #51951 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm

weeflea:

Dr Benway - obviously logic is not your strong point. Do you really think that shutting the 'faith door' will prevent child abuse?

My strong point is my enormous cock, which your mother seems to enjoy. But that is neither here nor there.

If moderate religionists would say, "faith, or belief without evidence, is not an acceptable basis for hurting people" I do believe that more fundamentalist believers would think twice.

Of course not all cruelty in the world would stop. Just the cruelty done because the Lord commands it, allegedly.

1954. God Hates the World

Comment #51906 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I think the onus is on the believers who object to this sort of thing to speak up. I want to hear them say, "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE."

1955. God Hates the World

Comment #51898 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm

If you, like me, felt a need to cleanse your 80s palate after the above, something like this might help:
Loving the Alien

I am really angry and disgusted with you for doing this. It is the worst thing you have done on this website yet and deserves an immediate apology and retraction.

The faith door lets in puppies, butterflies, warm summer days, etc., etc. But it also lets in Fred Phelps, suicide bombers, and clitorectomies.

Seeing as we can have the puppies, butterflies, and hugs without the faith, why not shut that dangerous door?

1956. God Hates the World

Comment #51878 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 1:07 pm

God is a sock puppet. A sock puppet with lawyers what dislike copyright infringement...

1957. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51855 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 11:49 am

Dianelos:

I would judge that the naturalist who believes that everything ends with death would tend to behave more egoistically or aggressively than the theist who believes that life here is only the beginning and that what one does in this life has relevance for the next.

Wow. Your brain isn't like mine.

My reaction to being stranded on a desert isle with one other person would be to form a bond of trust and solidarity with that person. He or she would be more precious to me than any other resource.

BTW, I don't see why I need a belief one way or the other regarding life after death. The notion seems like improbable wish fulfillment to me, so I'm assuming it's false. But give me evidence for it and I'll happily change my mind.

1958. In the name of the Father

Comment #51819 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 6:10 am

celestialteapot:

Excuse me for saying so, but I find it troubling that all of us clear-thinking, open-minded, rationalists get swept up in the fervent and over-zealous denunciation of religion.

Many segregationists are nice people who mean no harm to the negros. It's a small minority who are out burning crosses. Why do people here paint all segregationists with the same brush?

1959. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51816 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thor:

I have to say that the article is quite enjoyable and im surprised that it has generated so much criticism.

I admit my negative over-reaction, and put it down to two things:

1. Another recent article annoyed me and so primed my mood.

2. The title seemed to say that people who criticize religion are meanies. I'm not a meanie, and death to those who say otherwise!

I now repent of my reaction, but reserve the right to make snarky asides. The piece is no Parrot sketch, after all.

1960. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51808 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

Ethical principles arise out of the need to form cooperative relationships. They're like promises or social contracts. Humans develop general rules of thumb forbidding stealing, killing, bogarting the TV remote, etc., in order to live peacefully together.
Whatever. That doesn't answer which actions are objectively good or objectively bad...

Who would you rather have stuck with you on a desert isle: a social contract ethicist, or a divine intuition ethicist?

I'd want the social contract person. That person will talk to me and work things out with me. The other bloke will pray and likely tell me that the Lord needs all my fish.

1961. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51729 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 11:21 am

Yeah, Charlou, that's what I said. But then Dawkins came in here and gave us all a spanking. He explained that the author was being light-hearted and we should cut him slack.

These Brits have become a subtle lot it seems. What happened to Benny Hill? Or the Parrot sketch?

1962. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51727 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 11:07 am

I dislike the title of this article.

I'm generally in favor of snarky, but feel snarkiness ought to be reserved for dishonest or willfully ignorant self-important types, or for personal offense.

For example, I wouldn't be snarky to Mohammed Ali, even though he called himself "the best," because when he said that he was, in fact, the best. And I wouldn't be snarky to someone who referred to Rev. Falwell as a fatuous bigot for similar reasons.

I would grant the BA woman with the stupid face a few snarky remarks. She's a right to take offense, poor dear.

But this author didn't make clear to me the basis for his knowing smirk. He actually concludes the article with an anecdote showing that Dawkins can be reflective and uncertain.

So, looks like snarkiness for snarkiness' sake. Which is so 1990s.

1963. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51719 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 9:57 am

Dianelos:

On the other hand the same is good reason for me to reject naturalism because for me the proposition "gratuitous torture is objectively wrong" (i.e. is wrong by itself and not because of peoples' subjective opinion) is eminently meaningful. So from my point of view if according to naturalism this proposition is nonsense then so much the worse for naturalism.

Naturalistic fallacy here. Just because God doesn't like torture doesn't mean I shouldn't torture. For that to follow, I would have to accept the idea that I ought to do what God wants. Why should I accept that idea?

1964. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51716 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 9:37 am

Dianelos:

Well the dogma of atonement does not make much sense to me either. So, what's your point?

According to St. John, God disagrees with your position regarding torture being "objectively" wrong. So there isn't universal agreement for that proposition. Guess you've only got your "intuition" as a basis.

But am I obliged to take your intuition seriously? If not, doesn't that make this entire debate moot?

1965. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51713 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 9:03 am

Dianelos,

Your ethics sounds like a sub-set of esthetics. Good is perceived and experienced in a similar manner to beauty. Doing the right thing would seem to be fairly easy, if this were generally the case.

But often what we feel is the "right thing" is contrary to our natural impulses. There's an inner struggle to overcome a disinclination to do it.

Ethical principles arise out of the need to form cooperative relationships. They're like promises or social contracts. Humans develop general rules of thumb forbidding stealing, killing, bogarting the TV remote, etc., in order to live peacefully together.

But the rules can be broken under exceptional circumstances. We allow a positive defense like, "Yes, I broke the law. But a reasonable person in my situation would have done the same thing." This "reasonable person" defense needs a jury to prove by agreement that it's accurate.

The fact that we need juries proves that absolutist rules do not suffice.

In short, I don't see how anything supernatural is required to provide a foundation for a system of ethical principles.

It seems to me that you're using the word "objective" as an intensifier. Some things are bad. Some things are "objectively bad", meaning they're really, really bad. That's why you chose the emotionally charged example of child torture as your case. Child torture is very bad indeed. So it must be "objectively bad."

"Objective" when used thus means, "You'd have to be nuts to argue about this. Seriously, when I say bad, I mean bad. BAD I TELL YOU, BAD!!!"

I don't see how the term "objective" adds much to a discussion of ethics.

1966. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51611 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Nails:

What would be next?
The Chav religion ...

The Ring Thing looks pretty Chav already. But I'm the wrong side of the pond to judge these things.

1967. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51608 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:55 pm

siggy:

...will be indentified as a card-carrying, god-bothering, sacred-cow-slaughtering atheist.

Hey, I never bother God.

1968. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51606 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Russell Blackford:

Am I literally the only actual reviewer of the book who wasn't tone deaf when reading it? I don't know what that would tell us, if so, but it's a bit troubling.

Hmm. I seem to recall a couple of strongly positive reviews. Can't remember if humor was mentioned specifically.

Listening to TGD on my iPod, I laughed out loud. I'm not sure I could have reviewed TGD. Finding fault on some point appears de rigeur, and I'm afraid I loved the book too much to bother. I'd have written something sounding like adoring fan mail. *shudders*

1969. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51604 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:32 pm

IQHQ:

Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

Well. Good people don't need God to be good. Sociopaths generally feel that they are God. And for the weak who fall somewhere in between, fear of society's reaction to antisocial behavior is probably our best deterrent.

1970. In the name of the Father

Comment #51600 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 5:11 pm

He seems to think that religion is the root of all evil. It isn't.

I've said it before: Sure, religion can seem like just a bit of fun and games. Until someone looses an eye.

The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious.

Religion makes ordinary, natural xenophobia - which is often somewhat malleable - into something that can never change, because the divide between the saved and unsaved is eternal.

1971. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #51568 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Hey 2nd lifers:

I had the impression that people had a great deal of freedom in styling avatars and buildings in 2nd life.

Here's a page about a church there. Note the pic. It looks like Wal-Mart! Why would anyone willingly make something look like that?

http://swerve.lifechurch.tv/2007/03/12/lifechurchtv-has-a-second-life-church-campus/

1972. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51530 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 9:32 am

Dawkins:

Remember, this was never intended to be a book review, but just a light-hearted column...

Ah. So it's like an Andy Rooney "Ever notice shoes?" piece.

Note to self: there's "funny ha-ha", "funny eh?" AND "that was meant to be funny" funny.

Well then... carry on.

1973. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51518 by Dr Benway on June 23, 2007 at 8:15 am

This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.

The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things � including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them � progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose...

Guess he's not far enough along to get the "byproduct" argument.

Who publishes a book review prior to finishing the book?

What was the point of all that "as I get older, I can't seem to keep up" crap? Apparently he imagines his readers will be sympathetic to opinions based upon laziness.

1974. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #51403 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Guess I'll have to check this "Second Life" thing out. Today there's an article about an Oklahoma mega-church spending thousands to develop a presence there. Virtual religion!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18789168/

1975. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #51368 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 1:50 pm

sgr79:

I like the article a lot, but it's a shame that it's in the Washington Post and not published in another, less democrat-all-the-time, newspaper... I can't use it as an unbiased source; if I tried using anything from the article, I would get a "well of course they say that, they're the Washington Post!" kind of response.

I know what you mean. It seems like we've fallen into a trap. People only seem interested in whether a speaker is "liberal" or "conservative." If the speaker's on the wrong team, he's not to be trusted.

How did we get here? Don't most middle class Americans have the same hopes and worries? Don't we all want a safe place for our kids to grow up, good schools, a little leasure, healthcare, etc.? And can't we tackle these problems like engineers, weighing the pros and cons of various proposals, without making every discussion so personal?

Yesterday I wanted to share something from Al Gore's book with a friend. But I realized, once the words "Al Gore" passed my lips, he'd hear nothing else.

I think the PR people have been messing with our heads. Check out two documentaries at Google Videos: "The Power of Nightmares" and "Century of the Self."

1976. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51343 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 12:07 pm

For God so loved the world, that He tortured His only begotten Son...

1977. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51329 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 11:21 am

Finally I am disturbed by what you write above. Do you really mean to say that all ethical precepts, including such precepts as "you should not gratuitously torture children" is neither true nor false? I can't believe you mean that.

A statement is true when it corresponds to some bit of the real world. If I say, "I've a fiver in my pocket," that's not true (you'll have to take my word), because there's nothing in my pocket, actually, at the moment.

"Ought" statements are not about the world as it is, but as it ought to be. These statements do not correspond to a bit of reality, but to a bit of potential reality.

Example: "I ought not eat that chocolate on the table." In this case, there is actually a chocolate on a table in front of me. Will I eat it, or not? You don't know. Maybe I don't know.

If I eat it, is the "I ought not eat" statement false?

Perhaps your emotional reaction to the notion of torturing a child is getting in the way of thinking clearly about the is-ought problem. Try an ought statement you feel more neutral toward, like the chocolate example above.

1978. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51287 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 8:02 am

I'd let them have the rings, so long as they'd agree to participate in a study on teen pregnancy.

Study group: will wear a ring every day as a reminder not to think about sex. REMEMBER: DO NOT THINK ABOUT SEX!

Control group: general age matched population.

1979. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51238 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 3:22 am

PLEASE......why all the "the wailing and knashing of teeth"

Strawmen make the baby Jesus cry.

1980. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51234 by Dr Benway on June 22, 2007 at 2:58 am

Dianelos,

"Objectively wrong" is nonsense. "Wrong" means "something one ought not do."

"Torture is wrong" means "one ought not torture."

This is a command. It's similar to "pick up that glass." It is not a fact about the world. It is neither true nor false.

Some call this "is-ought" problem "Hume's guillotine." I've made this point before.

1981. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51169 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Preston Manning's characterization of the faith practiced by aboriginal Canadians is racist and myth-based.

C*nt. QED.

1982. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51162 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Are you lookin' at me bum? Cheeky monkeys!

1983. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51156 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 7:37 pm

BAEOZ,

If you were a card player, you'd know that 3 strawmen trump a c-bomb any day of the week.

1984. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51154 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm

hehner:

I thought the Manning article was clever and well written.

I disagree. Too many strawmen.

One strawman - perhaps you had too much to drink.
Two strawmen - perhaps passion got the best of you.
Three strawmen - you're a c*nt; all men of conscience are morally obligated to poop upon you, like it or not.
Four strawmen - the sin against the Holy Spirit that can never be forgiven.

edited so as not to outrage the chaste

1985. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51139 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 4:39 pm

The stem cell issue gives Bush a chance to act like he's a man of principle without pissing off too many supporters. But I don't think he gives a crap.

No man of principle would allow Guantanamo to happen. Most of the young men there, dead and dying, subject to torture, appear to be innocent.

Oh, don't get me started...

1986. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51134 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Dawkins:

Manning here. Quick summary of my earlier letter, case you missed it.

I say, "I was just like you once..." Very clever of me, for now I may insult you and no one will notice.

Strawman #1: I say you're "doing everything in your power" to oppress and suppress those who disagree with you.

Next I wrinkle my brow in concern for you. I'm like a nice big brother. Nice, but stern.

I give this warning: "Dawkins, you are in danger of discrediting the methods and institutions of science!"

This is probably as scary as it sounds. Look in the mirror, Dawkins. What do you see?

Oh no, it's Godzilla! You make the people want to run! Ahhhh!

But wait, there is more...

Theology (my thing) was once the "queen of sciences." Now read a bunch of amazing facts to know and share.

This is my point: I am like Mothra!

Godzilla thinks he knows so much. But he will learn. Mothra points to the way-back machine. Everyone sees a fuzzy picture of Mothra eating books and heretics. How awful!

Off topic: Mothra name drop "Galileo." Mothra get around.

Back on topic: Watch Mothra acting all smart. But no one loves Mothra. He is not sexy. Godzilla now should be getting the subtle implication of all this. Maybe Godzilla is feeling a little sad.

Good time for Mothra to cleverly flatter Godzilla by saying "Don't let Sam Harris have your Godzilla powers, for he cannot handle them!"

Mothra then change the subject abruptly.

Mothra says some nice things about the aboriginal peoples. Aboriginals are fond of animals, rocks and trees. They are not very sciency, but they are cool. Mothra knows about cool, even though his mom named him "Preston."

Strawman #2: Godzilla only likes science. He wants to take babies away from the poor indians so they don't learn any unscientific ideas. This is not cool!

Strawman #3: So, Godzilla, you stop abrogating everybody's freedom of conscience yet?

Hope this helps!

Fondly,

Preston

1987. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51114 by Dr Benway on June 21, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Mr. Manning, does your mother know you play with strawmen? Naughty, naughty!

Seriously, if this guy is retarded, then I'm impressed. If he's as smart as he seems to think he is, then he needs a spanking. It's rude to poop out strawmen in public like this.

Oh, and this little utterly useless history lesson is just awesome: Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) became a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church in 1599 and an archbishop in 1602.

Dood must get all the pussy he wants.

1988. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50973 by Dr Benway on June 20, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Dianelos:

Similarly I have a very high level of confidence in the truth of the proposition "gratuitous torture is objectively wrong" and as naturalism contradicts that proposition I have very strong reason to reject it.

Oranges and lemons, say the bells of St. Clement's
You owe me five farthings, say the bells of St. Martin's
When will you pay me? say the bells of Old Bailey
When I grow rich, say the bells of Shoreditch
When will that be? say the bells of Stepney
I do not know, says the great bell of Bow
Here comes a candle to light you to bed
And now Hume's guillotine to chop off your head!

1989. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50846 by Dr Benway on June 20, 2007 at 7:26 am

The argument regarding oppression ought to be tempered with an awareness that the notion of self includes one's tribe, team, or group generally, and that trauma can be vicarious.

A person who hasn't been oppressed himself can feel injured, if told stories about in-group members abused by some out-group. Note the intense reaction to the word "crusade" in the Muslim world, or the wailing, enduring grief over Hussein's murder among the Shiites. No living person today has any personal connection to events hundreds of years ago, but stories of these events continue to provoke a sense of violation.

Peace may depend upon eroding group boundaries. In the past, warring kings would arrange a marriage between their children. Imagine if all single Jews would marry Palestinians, if all single Sunnis in Iraq would marry a Shiite...

1990. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50836 by Dr Benway on June 20, 2007 at 6:45 am

newatheist:

Your personal experience for you: Taken at face value?

My "under normal circumstances" was a short-hand way of admitting that the brain plays a few tricks on us all, not just the schizophrenics. Perception is slave to interest. Illusions are easily provoked. Memories are actively constructed and re-constructed over years. False memories are relatively common. It's always wise to check one's experiences against a few independent sources of evidence. When there's no way to corroborate an event, it's reasonable to suspect inaccuracies within it.

We doublecheck ourselves all the time, e.g., "Is it hot in here, or is it me?" or "Did he say, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers?'"

Still, when rating the quality of sources, direct experience is superior to indirect experience. Individual liberty in a political sense rests upon this assertion.

1991. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #50744 by Dr Benway on June 19, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Enlightenme:

I have left clear instructions with my avatar that he is not to eat the apples.

LOL, you mean the shiny, red, candy-like apples?

1992. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50641 by Dr Benway on June 19, 2007 at 7:27 am

newatheist:

The arguments for religion are undone by honestly examined reason. (Especially the Argument from Personal Experience.)

Personal experience is direct and immediate, without intermediaries, and thus is a good basis for personal belief under normal circumstances. However, it's weak evidence when used in an argument to convince others when it can't be corroborated by the listeners.

The boy in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes based his belief in the Emperor's nakedness upon personal experience. A few people lied about what they were seeing, and the masses put more faith in the liars' alleged personal experiences than in their own personal experience. Big mistake.

In sum:
My personal experience for me: good evidence.
Your personal experience for me: not so good.

1993. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50526 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Benjamin Michael:

darwin2 is a plagiarist

Oh dear. Plagiarism makes the baby Jesus cry.

1994. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50525 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Poor sod. The honor likely cranked his life insurance premium through the roof.

1995. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50456 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

Dianelos:

So in conclusion: We saw that naturalism entails several serious conceptual problems, including the problem of consciousness, the problem of objective goodness, and the absence of an epistemology about objective reality.

Is that the royal "we" or do "we" have worms?

"You should not do X as it is wrong"

This means the same as "You should not do X as you should not do X," which reduces to "You should not do X."

1996. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50451 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 7:54 am

I gave this definition of "objective":

Objectivity in science is the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.

Dianelos:

Remember that in my worldview the physical universe is not objective...

You must not be using the same definition of objective as I'm using. We prove a statement is objective by independent corroboration. I say "the water is 62 degrees." Someone else measures the temp and gets the same thing. Corroboration proves the statement is objective, or independent of me, the subject.

How do you prove a statement is objective in your "worldview"?

1997. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50445 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 7:24 am

An imperative is a command. It's of the form, "pick up that glass," or "shut up" or "thou shalt not steal" It's neither true nor false.

1998. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50442 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 7:12 am

newatheist:

I could trot out the old "that doesn't make it true", and I'm also reminded of thoughts expressed by Prof Dawkins about this patronising attitude, which I can't properly paraphrase at the moment (too tired).

How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?

1999. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50431 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 5:51 am

I wonder how the cardinals can believe the nonsense they foist upon the masses. The old men at the top of the church heirarchy are intelligent, well educated, multi-lingual, and connected to the world's movers and shakers. The guy denouncing AI, Cardinal Renato Martino, lived in Manhatten and worked at the UN for several years. If the current pope kicks off, he might be the next. Surely he knows that a Papal bull is, well, just that.

You keep the masses in line with a certain amount of strictness and fear. Leadership can't change opinion or direction too frequently without appearing weak.

2000. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50427 by Dr Benway on June 18, 2007 at 5:19 am

newatheist:

Well that gets rid of religion then, doesn't it?

Gets rid of fundamentalism. But religion can be tempered by doubt and uncertainty, which is honest.

Religious rituals can provoke a sense of the sacred, and many people find that valuable. But religious experience is a human thing, a fallable thing, a quirky brain thing, and not a reasonable basis for taking action against other people.

People can keep their rituals without giving them strong evidentiary status.