Really a fascinating read from an incredibly open-minded, bisexual woman. I think this will provoke a lot of interesting discussion. My question would be, is she truly a Catholic? Must one be completely in agreement with all doctrine to be considered an adherent to that doctrine? Are some things fundamental and not a matter of choice? Who makes that decision? Any who – please read. She’s really fascinating and intelligent. Her other blog posts are worth reading, too. The Link
This incident reminds me of a book by Eric Hoffer called "The True Believer" which talks about "fanaticism" and how it has more to do with a personality type than the belief itself. "The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed." - Wikipedia
Good post, oldhippie, I agree with that. It explains the otherwise intelligent people who eschew evolution for creationism. Those types are drawn to movements and will believe what their movements tell them to believe,
Well... I don't think she is a Catholic. I don't think you can claim allegiance to a doctrine and pick/choose what you like and don't like. However, I think it's possible for her to be a "Christian" by her own definition who happens to go to a Catholic church. The choice of church was motivated by social pressure and not any belief in Catholicism as an accurate doctrine. But there is a hole in my theory. There are Catholic saints who have challenged church beliefs. We would agree they are Catholics, but they didn't agree with everything the church said. If the Catholic church is a manmade institution (which I believe it is), then perhaps one can be "Catholic" and disagree with certain Catholic biblical interpretation. Of course, then one would be a protestant. Seems like I'm working myself into circles.
How Foolish Atheists Convinced The Atheist Blogger Leah Libresco That Catholic Philosophy Was Rationally Superior To Atheism
Perham1 I think strikes at the foundation of the problem which I’m struggling with. How can you truly belong to a group of people who suggest an unquestionable morality provided by a higher being and question that morality? The bible’s stance on homosexuality is not really debatable. I quickly scanned jcdenton’s links, and it seems like her error (in the other blogger’s opinion) was suggesting objective morality must have a divine inference. Or, that the divine inference is just as rational as the natural inference. His defense looks rather exhaustive and compelling. I think this girl was facing enormous social pressure to become a Catholic, and her metaphysic goal had a Catholic endpoint. She’s still smarter than me.
I want to hear more about this bisexuality angle. These women fascinate me. I met a lesbian who stepped over the line with me at a party in Austin in about 1974 and I still have dreams about it. I think what really turned me on was that in the few months we were seeing each other, I didn't get jealous when she was sleeping with other women like I would if she was eating off other guy's plates. The atheist/catholic bit is so yesterday. I have been both at times and find both beliefs unsustainable. But a lesbian girlfriend is something you can build a fantasy life around.
One cannot "refuse to believe in a supernatural entity/creator" unless they have first taken the position that the Universe as we understand it is sufficient to explain its own being.... Incorrect. While our understanding of the universe at this time may be insufficient to "explain its own being" that does not mean our understanding will always be bereft of such knowledge.
Other than the "first cause" there is no need to invoke a supernatural being; i.e., the additional variable of a god is not needed for any explanatory value. And even at the "first cause" level, who made god? Another god? That's an interesting metaphysical inquiry but it by no means requires one to believe in a supernatural being. Is there a god? Nobody knows. Language or logic games won't prove it, imo. Or disprove it. What does seem to be quite clear is that all versions of current and past gods are exclusively man-made and thus weak anthropomorphic (even fraudulent) representations of a supreme being.
Religious faith wasn’t specified so in the interest of a healthy dialectic I wanted to address the question as I understand and experience it. Faith is antithetical to certainty. The dialectic pivots.
