The ‘new’ atheism strikes again
A pretty story – more data to back up Karen Armstrong’s claim that religion is centrally about compassion.
Commenting on the controversial case of a 9-year-old Brazilian rape victim who underwent an abortion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said the concern the church needs to show the girl does not change the fact that abortion is wrong. In declaring that the doctors and others who were involved in helping the girl [including her mother – OB] procure an abortion automatically incurred excommunication, the church does not intend to deny the girl mercy and understanding, said the statement published in the July 11 edition of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.
No – all it intends is to deny her rescue from bearing twins at the age of 9 after being repeatedly raped by her stepfather. That’s all.
Time gives some background.
The brief document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the orthodoxy office that Benedict personally led before becoming Pope, defends Sobrinho’s “pastoral delicacy” and leaves no wiggle room on the standing of the family and doctors who carried out the abortion…”The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
As usual: strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Worry more about a currently notional ‘innocent’ than about a non-notional living feeling child.
But beyond the constant tug-of-war between Rome and local dioceses, there is a more important principle at stake. “We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith,” the official says. “This is not just theory. And you can’t start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight.” Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.
Ah yes, that principle! That important principle! The principle of ‘fuck humans and their weight and their needs, we have a doctrine of the faith’!
Evil bastards. Evil mindless unthinking callous bastards.
Oh, by the way, Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic nun.
And if there’s any connection between episodes like this and her decision to cease being a nun, she hasn’t mentioned it.
Oh! But you used bad language! The faithful will never listen to your message now!
“This is not just theory. And you can’t start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight.” Um, actually, YES YOU CAN. You can revise your theories when you realise that they don’t accord with reality. In this case, the reality is that sometimes abortion is the most just and humane course of action available, therefore an absolute proscription against it will inevitably be unjust and inhumane. Theories that don’t need to be revised in accordance with reality aren’t theories, they’re unfounded dictates.
I’m sorry, why are we acting like being kicked out of their death cult was a bad thing? Seems to me that excommunication is the only silver lining to the whole wretched chain of events.
But isn’t everyone missing the point here by only engaging with the crude forms of religion? I mean, I find in your criticisms no serious examination of Christian theology. Did you that know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century. And you make no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions like: are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters? The question as to whether the actions leading to the abortion was evil is deeply personal religious question that is the purview of metaphysics. As with other metaphysical questions, there are smart, informed people on both sides; it’s up for grabs. So, don’t be so quick to condemn the church unless you’ve read the appropriate scholarship regarding metaphysics and the existence of evil.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist the snark in the previous post. In case you were curious, I was channeling Allen Orr (“A Mission to Convert”) and H.E. Baber (on an earlier thread).
Anyway, speaking of faitheist positions, I just ran across another of Mooney’s posts.
I’m beginning to think it might be appropriate to use two sets of scare quotes when describing Mooney, as in: “science” “journalist”. He commit one of the most naive errors of the scientifically illiterate by extrapolating into the future from only two points: ie from around the time of the space race and now. That’s a pretty basic statistical error.
Chris also manages to call his journalistic credentials into question by neglecting other trends that could explain the apparent scientific illiteracy. I suspect that Michael Jackson’s death played a more prominent role in news coverage in 2009 than did James Dean’s death in 1955, Humphrey’ Bogart’s in 1957, or the simultaneous deaths of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper in 1959. Does Mooney seriously think he can casually discard the competing hypothesis of an increasing influence of “infotainment” consumption that has been ushered in by the 24-hour cable news and internet cultures?
Anyway, if we were to listen to Mooney’s advice, we of course wouldn’t even be having this conversation, as, according to him, outspoken, outraged, and sharply worded criticism of religion only pisses the zealots and alienates the moderates who are potential allies. Mooney has really managed to systematically reverse my opinion of him in record time.
Nicely aimed irony, JJE! (Aimed at me, too, I think, and a palpable hit.) However, this is just where understanding ‘the deeply personal religious question that is the purview of metaphysics’ is not to the point. This is where all that deep metaphysical thinking comes home to roost in the lives of ordinary people, and where it is seen as a form of monolithism that is imposed on sensitive human beings, and so just where religion’s vaunted claim to humanity, dignity and compassion is shown to be hollow. There are some Christians who would say, with some justice, that this is a caricature of what Christian morality should be, distilled through the alembic of Aristotle and Aquinas. Evil bastards, indeed, but not entirely mindless or unthinking. Too much mind, not enough recognition of the place of emotion in moral thinking.
A number of points.
1. JJE, it gets worse. Jerry Coyne has apost up at his blog showing the $ 12.2 billion figure is wrong. Mooney has posted a comment on his blog admitting the error. As yet the HuffPo, nor Mooney’s post on it at his blog have a correction.
2. With regards the nine year old girl, the opinion of the medical staff treating her was that going to term was likely to kill her. The “compassion” showed by the Catholic Church is even less impressive knowing that.
3. The step-father, who raped the girl, has not been excommunicated. Instead the Church will be praying for him
Just as I was shutting down, I noticed this post I was meaning to read. Her description of science is a more eloquent statement of what I believe. I place myself in the camp of someone who isn’t particularly engaged by the question of whether the “metaphysical hunches are true”. I care primarily if they are useful.
“I don’t think (contra PZ Myers) that the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible.”
Oi! Beware of falling into the atheist-haters’ trap! PZ doesn’t think that, for chrissake.
Nor do I: the religious — like everyone else — should be ridiculed and humiliated whenever such treatment is warranted and deserved.
Well, perhaps I should have rephrased it slightly. Larry’s point about warranted ridicule is one aspect that deserves mention. Well-earned derision is one way to get PZ calling out the ideas of a particular person for special ridicule (See Comfort, Ray). But that wasn’t what I was thinking about in particular.
I know PZ doesn’t ridicule BELIEVERS indiscriminately. That would include 85% of the U.S. population. But he makes a case that religious BELIEF of all kinds should be ridiculed. And regarding this, I think he is fairly indiscriminate. Nor do I think this is indefensible. However, I don’t adopt this approach even if I do agree on the underlying ridiculousness of those beliefs.
Anyway, simply because I don’t endorse PZ’s strategy doesn’t imply I think it is unjustifiable or that I think PZ is an asshat for doing so. It just isn’t my style. The only reason I even mentioned that aspect is because PZ’s MO seems to me to differ from Eric’s in important ways. And while I think I am more inclined than Eric cause discomfort to believers by criticizing their BELIEFS, I think I am less inclined than PZ.
Whatever – but there’s a big difference between ridiculing beliefs (and saying religious beliefs should be ridiculed, which is another huge level back) and thinking “that the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible.” A very big difference. Be careful how you word things when you’re talking about specific people. That’s a disgusting accusation, actually – and I would say it’s not a matter of “perhaps I should have rephrased it slightly” but one of energetic apology.
I’m getting so tired of this shit – no doubt partly because I’ve had some fairly disgusting accusations thrown at me by people in Major Media lately, but mostly just because there’s so much of it around and it’s so…foul. I’m getting very tired of hearing that ‘the New Atheists’ like to humiliate people, like to eat babies, like to set fire to houses in the middle of the night and listen to the screams, like to torture kittens, like to drink their own urine, like to scribble all over Rembrandt paintings –
PZ is not a monster and he does not “think that the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible”!
Wow, it is a little disconcerting to be called out so explicitly. Please indulge my defense. I do not think that I wrote was “shit”, sloppy as it may have been. Nor do my sentiments in any way indicate that I assent to being separated in any meaningful way from “new atheists” (I don’t like the term, but I tend to agree with those who are identified with the term).
It seems to me either sloppy or disingenuous of you to imply that I think as a general principle that new atheists like to humiliate people, not to mention your hyperbole about kittens and arson. I made a very specific (and erroneous) claim: “PZ likes to humiliate religious people indiscriminately”, and when pressed, I recognized the error, immediately recanted, and clarified by making the defensible statement that “PZ likes to ridicule religious ideas”. But before I backtrack too far, PZ does in fact relish the humiliation of some people, especially, but not exclusively, creationists (eg Ben Stein, Ray Comfort, Bill Donohue, Ken Ham, etc). But he is rather selective about who deserves such ridicule and isn’t indiscriminate about it, contrary to my erroneous assertion. I was wrong, and I admitted it and I hereby apologize for that.
Ultimately, I think you are being a bit too defensive. When I said the following (which is I admit is in part factually erroneous, as indicated in two posts now):
I tried to leave enough room to justify my own right to occasional ridicule and humiliation, as long as it stems from the argument. Why would a new atheist hater do that? I think a continuum (composed entirely of atheists willing to criticize religion publicly) with PZ’s perspective at one extreme and perhaps Eric’s (but only if I interpret him correctly) at the other. In fact, I am personally very much uncomfortable humiliating people at all, no matter how richly deserving and justified it may be. That’s my personal choice. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate that there are people that are willing to do so on occasion, like PZ and apparently Larry. But empathy can also be productive as Eric tried to elaborate, and simultaneously pulling off humiliation and empathy is difficult if not downright impossible. I tend to try to stick to criticizing ideas, irrespective if ridiculing ideas leads to humiliation.
Thus, it would be disingenuous (and therefore disrespectful) for me to make an apology any less qualified than what I make above, because I honestly, and in what I believe to be in good faith, have apologized and clarified sufficiently.
I actually don’t think anyone deserves to be humiliated, ever. But some people deserve to be shunned. The evil people who made this decision are among them.
I would love to see an aggressive “New Atheist” ad campaign against the Catholic Church’s views on abortion and contraception, basically inviting people to consider whether they want to support this atrocity.
Nope, sorry, JJE, that won’t fly. You said (as you acknowledge) “I don’t think (contra PZ Myers) that the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible.” That translates to “PZ Myers thinks that the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible.” That’s not true, and it’s a very strong charge. You didn’t “recant” – you did something well short of that, because you qualified it – you said “Well, perhaps I should have rephrased it slightly.”
Look closely at that sentence. It contains four qualifying words, out of a total of eight. “Well” – no big deal here. “perhaps” – or perhaps not; nothing obvious here. “rephrased” “slightly” – and “should have” isn’t really strong enough either. “I” and “it” are the only words left.
Saying, falsely, that someone thinks “the religious should necessarily be ridiculed and humiliated whenever possible” is not something that can be “recanted” with a mere “well” and “perhaps” and “rephrased slightly.” Furthermore, recantation isn’t enough; an apology is also required.
Refusals to apologize when apology is obviously required get my goat. I’m not going to apologize for that.
(It’s not that I want to fight with you, or pitch a fit for the sake of it. It’s just that that really was a very strong charge and I really do think you failed dismally to take it back properly.)
Jenavir –
Yeah. I would adore to see that.
PZ doesn’t engage in indiscriminate bullying, humiliation, or ridicule*, arson, killing kittens, or other demonic or occultist act, except as regards the appropriate rites he performs in service of his god Cthulu.
I just deleted a long post in the input box defending myself, but I really don’t want to spend time further engaging in this. Suffice it to say I was wrong, I have made yet another correction (and tried to be humorous about it) but I can’t work up enough understanding of your perspective to feel sorry. I continue to feel no ill-will towards PZ and my words don’t communicate ill-will when I read them to myself, yet they apparently do when you read them. It is that gulf that I can’t bridge, and frankly, since I don’t object to PZ, I have little interest in adopting your level empathy on his behalf. He’s a big boy.
I know I’m being an awful dick on someone else’s blog. You’d be within your rights in discouraging such a disruptive newcomer from further posts. But I had been quite excited to see this blog when I saw you posting on Jerry’s site. But I must admit, this exchange has really taken the wind out of my sails. I really do think we agree on a lot. But I don’t have the energy police my own language so clearly that I’m not allowed mistakes without being called out self-righteously for energetic public apology.
* This sentence can end at the asterisk for the serious (less funny) version.
That’s crap. Of course you’re allowed mistakes! I didn’t say anything about energetic apology. You didn’t apologize at all, and you said merely ‘Well, perhaps I should have rephrased it slightly’ when you’d made a very harsh accusation.
Of course PZ is a big boy. Call it my pedantry if you like. I’m allergic to inadequate withdrawals and/or apologies. They’re very common (so common that there are names for them – which I won’t irritate you by divulging) and they’re very unfortunate – because they perpetuate quarrels that could be ended with a few words.
I bet you’ve had people get cross with you about this kind of thing in real life, hmm? Haven’t you?
It’s not a trivial issue, actually. I get that you want to think it is, but it isn’t. It’s got to do with admitting one is wrong, and with trying to do something about it. If it were just some factual thing, obviously talk of rephrasing would be fine. But accusations about people that are not true…sorry, but that’s a different matter.
So yeah, you are being a dick, since you mention it. You’re welcome to stay around, but you are being a dick about this.