Pre-infected Condoms
Why did no one (until G Tingey in comments today) tell me Richard Dawkins has set up a foundation and a website? It’s apparently (judging by the dates on some of the postings) been there since May. This is September. I’m out of touch.
So it republishes this Johann Hari piece about the real reasons to feel disapprobation for the pontiff. Here’s an item that stirred a certain amount of distaste in me.
For over a decade now, he has been one of the primary defenders of priests who go to the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world and tell them condoms are the cause of AIDS. In the past year, I have sat in two Catholic churches thousands of miles apart and listened while a Catholic priest told illiterate people with no alternative sources of information that condoms come pre-infected with AIDS and are the reason people die of it. In Bukavu, a crater-city in Congo, and in the slums ringing Caracas, Venezuela, people believed it. They told me they “would not go to Heaven” if they used condoms, and that condoms contain tiny invisible holes through which the virus passes – the advice their priest had doled out.
I knew about the last part, but I didn’t know priests were telling people that condoms come pre-infected and are themselves the reason people die of Aids. I knew priests were telling people condoms were ineffective as well as sinful; I didn’t know they were telling people they were actually the source of infection. I knew they were wicked, I didn’t know they were as wicked as that.
So…there’s one example of a harm that is prompted exclusively by a religious idea. What possible secular reason can there be to object to condoms on principle? And if there were one, what possible secular reason could be strong enough to outweigh the reasons to try to avoid getting and transmitting Aids. One reason preaching against condom-use is so disgusting is that people can be entirely virtuous and faithful and still get Aids from a partner who isn’t, so the Vatican’s policy kills faithful wives along with unfaithful husbands, and then it kills the children of the unfaithful husbands. It takes a real perversion of moral insight to do that, and to go on doing it despite being told that it’s what you’re doing. That’s the kind of thing that makes ‘aggressive’ atheists like me (and like Dawkins, and Hari) angry. There’s enough unavoidable illness and misery in the world; it annoys us that the Vatican goes to so much trouble to create extra, for the sake of – opposing birth control. The game seems not quite worth the candle, frankly.
But there is a deeper philosophical repugnance to Ratzinger lying beneath these individual decisions. His recent lecture was devoted to the premise that the free pursuit of reason will lead all people to a rational belief in the Christian God described in the Bible.
So it’s just a coincidence that most Christians have Christian parents and that most non-Christians have non-Christian parents? Accidents of birth, geography, social surroundings, context, upbringing, education, tradition have nothing to do with it? Interesting. Credulity-straining, but interesting.
Newsnight’s on in five minutes. Might have missed the interview. Thanks.
As I frequently check to see what Dawkins is up to, I was also surprised, but I suspect the site itself hasn’t been up that long. Most of what there is is either older or reviews of “The God Delusion” or articles about Ratzinger and Islam. Many sections still aren’t functioning and their first newsletter has yet to make its appearance. So I think we’re still witnessing the birth, rather than coming in after the first act has started properly. It is great news that he’s doing it. Especially that he’s putting such emphasis on awareness of religious labelling of children.
The website itself has been on-line only for a couple of days. Prior to that, it had been under construction for a couple of months.
‘the free pursuit of reason will lead all people to a rational belief in the Christian God described in the Bible’
Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, bugger, I’ve wet me knickers!
Oh ah – thanks, Mike. I was misled by the dates on the first posts. Silly; I should have thought of backdating; I backdated some items when B&W was born. Gave it that lived-in feeling (actually, just included some items I wanted included).
I sent you an email the day it went live. Perhaps it never arrived, or you don’t read your email or :)
“the premise that …”? Surely that was the thesis rather than the premise?
“His recent lecture was devoted to the premise that the free pursuit of reason will lead all people to a rational belief in the Christian God described in the Bible.”
um… is that what Papa Ratzi actually said? I think his argument was less extreme than that.
Well, maybe. He implied it, but didn’t state it quite that explicitly, I think.
“We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.”
I would say that implies it, or rather that the speech as a whole does. Reason and Christianity are linked, and a concept of reason that excludes Christianity is inadequate; therefore (implied) if reason is used properly all people will be led to a rational belief in the Christian God described in the Bible.
Thanks for your comments on Il Papa’s talk, OB. He certainly links Xtianity and reason – as in ‘reason and faith are compatible’ and, as you point out, ‘reason is incomplete without faith’ – but i thought he left ‘faith’ as something that comes from some other non-rational (unexplained) source (‘revelation’ i spose). Otherwise wouldn’t he be making Xtianity into some kind of ‘natural theology’?
And thanks for bringing to your readers’ attn both ‘Jesus and Mo’ and Richard Carrier’s ‘Hero Saviour of Vietnam’.
Where do these religous people swarm to. If you carefully look they are the areas where people are suffering from social ( not political) problems against which they find themselves helpless. Science where it has partial solutions is truthful about it. These religous people offer solutions that are lies and a human right betrayal of all people. They will not go where science can offer solutions because then it is the science which does the explainable miracles.
“There’s enough unavoidable illness and misery in the world…” But there _isn’t_ enough for for the Church. Miserable people are more receptive to superstition. Christianity and Islam are, at bottom, death-cults. You’re _supposed_ to be miserable until you go to your Eternal Reward, which you won’t get unless you are sufficiently miserable in life. If he’d had the power, I’m sure that the Pope would have ordered the first microbiologists burned to prevent people from finding out where plagues really come from.