“Ridenda Religio” : the mantra expresses the raison d’être, the reason, the purpose for the existence of this blog. Ridicule is a powerful weapon but has always been a two-edged sword. “Collateral damage” is another way of expressing the undesired effects of scorn, of making something – or worse, someone – a laughing stock. A weapon, therefore, to be handled with care. The red line that must not be crossed, to avoid the potential backlash of excessive ridicule, can be described only in terms of bad taste. Examples abound. A classic is the 1970 movie “MASH”, which inspired the popular, sanitized TV series of the same name (but with asterisks : “M*A*S*H”). The film’s portrayal of the pathetic, naîve, comical Catholic chaplain and of the pious Protestant doctor praying on his knees like a kid beside his bunk, and especially the satirical scene blasphemously recreating da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper, demonstrate the limits which ridicule ignores at its own risk.
The majority of mankind believes in God and billions practise some form of religion. Degrees of conviction and commitment vary, but religious people are more often than not believers not for intellectual, logical or theological reasons but for traditional, tribal, transcendent reasons. Their belief is part of the heritage, the education, they have received. Many of them never ask themselves why they believe; they never question their faith. They are not interested in, and consider unnecessary, theological arguments about God’s existence; for them God is a given, necessary to make sense of the world, of their life and of their death. And although they may not understand much of what their religion teaches them, they accept its beliefs, obey its rules (more or less) and participate in its rituals. They feel offended if not insulted when atheists make fun of their faith and religious practice. For non-believers to call their beliefs silly is to suggest, convinced believers feel, that they themselves are stupid. This is the second, sharper edge of the sword, the cause of the collateral damage.
Such believers should not be the atheist’s primary target. This blog is intended for believers who have already begun to feel uncomfortable with and to question their Church’s doctrine, who have jettisoned some or much of it, but cling to the core beliefs : God, the soul and the after-life. These Believers on the Brink can be led to see that even these rock foundations of their faith crumble under objective scrutiny. To help them realize how credulous they have been, some of us former believers find it effective to share with them our personal discovery of the lack of evidence for what we used to believe, and show them just how ridiculous we have found religious doctrines and practices to be. We laugh at our own credulity and get them to laugh at theirs. We want them to see how ridiculous religion really is. Which is why I keep repeating :
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
I can relate to much of what Frank has eloquently said, and can also agree with many of his observations.
We should not lump all religions together, however. Some are based on more rigorous and credible evidence than others. By necessity, if they all hold to varying beliefs, not more than one, can claim the fullness of truth.
For that matter, as Frank observes, far fewer people believe in atheism than some form of God, or for that matter, fewer than in any one of the major monotheistic faiths, and atheism cannot be true if at least one religious faith is true.
I was born Catholic and as I matured in age I have never failed to test my beliefs against alternate views, even during my ongoing keen interest in scientific matters, and observation of life in a godless society, compared to one living by Gospel values, even imperfectly..
Catholic Faith is solid and defensible. It is a lived faith, equally available, of course, to all levels of reasoning ability, social advantage and spiritual awareness.
Believers on the brink, Frank’s stated target for “liberation”, should remember, of course, that they, like all of us, can have absolute assurance of death in some few years. If they follow Frank’s beliefs, and he’s correct, they will become oblivion, and never find out. If he is wrong, they will regret it for eternity. However, if they hang on, despite some difficulties, and he is right, they will never know it. If they are right, they face eternal happiness.
So, dear believers on the brink, at the unimportant risk of feeling that non-believers might think you silly, I am sure that experienced book makers would think you’d be silly to give up. Just study the form from a reliable expert, check the odds, which Frank indicates as in the favour of believers by a large margin, and stick with the favorite. You can not lose if you stick with it, but bookies do keep making a living. Alors!
Frank does make a very good point that many believers do not think deeply about why they believe, just carry on a family or cultural practice with little scrutiny; regrettable but true. This interesting topic deserves a whole post on its own, for which I hope to be given the opportunity for a following response.
Of course, it could be said that there is a big number, I expect much greater than those who have reasoned their way to atheism by honest evaluation of all the facts, who do not have Christian belief, because they have not been exposed to it nor thought it relevant to daily existence and survival on a material plane.
Frank states that he is driven to share his personal discovery of the lack of evidence for what he used to believe in. This has also been done in his book.
What I found lacking in the book was a clear statement of his personal reasons for disbelief in the core elements of his former Faith.
For example, it might be fair to ridicule certain practices and rituals if there were no God. Those who engage in such procedures clearly do so on the basis of belief in God. So, Frank should have first established a solid basis for disbelief in God. Frank did not present strong, or even weak, evidence in support of a mindless cause of creation, or it would seem, his belief that there is no higher intelligence than human intelligence, ordering the universe and all in it. This is one of his fundamental weaknesses, which I hope target readers will realise.
I put this question to Frank last week, again. I hope a response will be soon posted.
I do hope some atheists on the brink might join the discussion.
LikeLike
1. I do not “believe” in atheism. I do not believe in GOD, just as I do not believe in Santa Claus.
2. Pascal’s Wager – what have you got to lose by betting that the whole religious spiel is true ? – you have rephrased in terms Randwick punters will appreciate. It is still the cop-out of people terrified by death and the threat of eternal punishment, who think that the Divine Accountant will not notice or mind this hedging of their bet and this less than noble subterfuge of cowards.
3. Thank you, Jim, for recognizing that some of us at least “have reasoned their way to atheism by honest evaluation of all the facts.”
4. Every page in my book and everyone of my posts on this blog present my “personal reasons for disbelief in the core elements of (my) former faith”. The conclusion of “Ridiculing Religion” sums them up : “lack of evidence” and “how ridiculous religion really is”. Beyond Bertrand Russell’s “not enough evidence”, I add that religious belief and practice are just too silly for words.
5. You know perfectly well why I refuse your diversionary tactics of expecting me to answer your rehashed questions, thereby ignoring my earlier insistence that you first answer mine about a “God of love” slaughtering 230,000 people in the 2004 tsunami. Your “Opening Remark” is a pathetically inadequate shooting yourself in the foot (surely you don’t agree with the late mad Reverend Jerry Falwell ?). I am still waiting for an explanation of how you can believe in such a “God”. This is my condition for continuing this “dialogue”. It was the point of my tongue-in-cheek self-derision about “Metacommunication”.
LikeLike
The Big Bang theory of creation, which sits unhappily alongside the Biblical narrative, tells us that the Universe came from nothing – the singularity of cosmological mathematics.
Theists have sought and continue to seek to explain this extraordinary mystery by positing the existence of a “God”, one of the terrifying descriptions of their creation being described in the Semitic folklore of the Old Testament.
The simple interpolation of an inexplicable “cause” into the scientific thesis would not of itself be particularly problematic in as much as it adds nothing to the theory and this unprovable interpolation can be subsumed into the mystery of the singularity.
But theists of all stripes endow their creation with human attributes and powers – usually of infinite proportions – attributes such as love, hate, preference, choice, purposefulness, anger, vanity, pride, vengeance etc etc. The terrifying exponent of this man-made creation is described in detail in the Old Testament.
And, as we know, the New Testament builds on the Old. The creator Father-God of the Old Testament is not denied but reinterpreted in the elaboration and additions of the New.
And on this fantastic foundation a religion of extraordinary beliefs and elaborate rituals is constructed.
It is unsurprising that rationalists not only reject the premise but ridicule its elaboration of belief and ritual.
LikeLike
I know how poor Job felt, defending the perceived injustice of God against Eliphaz, Bildad and Elihu, although Elihu must be one of those shy,silent over the brinkers, awaiting his moment.
Like Job, I know my redeemer lives.
You will have to be patient, Thom, while I attend to Frank, your senior and also,first in the queue.
Howdy, Frank.
You have conveniently numbered your points. I thank you for making it easier to address one by one.
1. You would have to be agnostic, the only choice left, I believe. I think I previously pointed this out to you, from a revelation in your book. I have no problem with agnostics, as Some are genuinely puzzled at all the claims and counter claims of different belief groups, both religious and atheist. I also have outgrown belief in Santa.
2. Pascal was a very rational scientist and mathematician. I suppose no other name, outside of Jesus, Mary and perhaps Allah, would be evoked daily. Weather reports in every world region would refer to him.
Despite your claim of cowardice, He was pragmatic and might help some agnostic tip the scale, and begin re examining Christian teaching in a more open way.
Edward Feser was actually atheist until he looked into Aquinas proofs for God with the intention of ridiculing them to his philosophy students. When going deeper than he previously thought worthwhile, and without the closed mind of a declared atheist, he found his way out of atheism and into Catholicism.
3. Did I say “honest” evaluation. Some people will honestly evaluate facts and end up in error. It’s not only a matter of honesty, intellectual capacity and judgement are involved .
Come on, Frank! How do you get all the facts, and how would you know when you had them. Hitler probably evaluated the facts and thought he would win the war.
What fallible creature can possess all the facts?
Human minds are fallible, even the best. Even the pope is fallible, except when being infallibly guided by God who promised His guidance in certain matters.
I think you have shot yourself in the foot, and shown that for full truth and knowledge we have to be guided by an infallible source, beyond human reasoning.
I claim check mate, old mate. You’ve inadvertently answered the question that you have been evading.
4. I will take your word for it, but I bet I could find a page to prove you wrong. However, it matters little how many pages state Frank O, Meara’s personal reasons.
There are 7.3 billion potential books of personal reasons, and , as you admit, the vast majority would give the opposite conclusion to yours.
Do you claim some super intellect that would negate all those others? Is the opinion of an atheist worth a million of those souls, equally vlued and loved in the eyes of their Creator.
5. Your trump card.
As before, I humbly state, though difficult in view of my large dose of human pride, that I don’t know the reasoning of the supreme intelligence. For some reason, He gave us free will, and would like us to believe in what He has revealed, particularly, through His son, Jesus. I glimpse what He is about. He made us, and wills us to earn eternal happiness with Him. As a consequence of making us in HIs image, we must have free will, as He has. That all seems logical, as would be expected.
As with Adam and Eve, He makes one request to test us. If we fail that request ,we forfeit our intended inheritance. A bit mean you say? But wait, there’s more!
He is after all, a loving Father and can’t help bending over backwards to give us a second chance and third, up to 7×77 chances and more, and even informs us how to make up for our failures. He even revealed by stories that Jesus told, to make it all clear, if only we believe what Jesus revealed, and the Church that Jesus established is always there to guide us.
So, as long as we trust God’s revealed guide lines, through Jesus, we have only ourselves to blame by letting our human pride or stubbornness, or stiff necks get in the way of sending those Pascal bookies broke.
Oh, the 230,000. If they have been wisely following the guidance of Jesus, they will be ready, like all of us , for unexpected death. Most of those people have had it hard on earth, and will b infinitely better off in heaven. Those who are ignorant of Jesus, will be judged by a merciful God. He has infinite wisdom and sees into hearts.
It’s the same principle, Frank, whether a single person killed in a car crash, or 230,000.
Big numbers seem to be your stumbling block in many areas. Many small numbers make a big number. Remember the atoms in your intestine compared to the stars in the sky!
Finally, I think I have given my pound of flesh, and expect you to honourably tell me if there is an intelligence, greater than human intelligence, involved with the universe and humanity.
Now some lunch, and on to Thom, in a wee moment.
LikeLike
Jim, this is a response to your first comment today, posted here in France at 3:12 a.m., after lunch in Sydney.
Apparently I have “inadvertently answered the question that I have been evading”. So you should be content. Even though it would seem I’m too dumb to notice the implications of what I write, you got your answer after all. I did NOT, however, get mine. In what you expect me to accept as your answer as to how you can believe that a “God of love” could slaughter 230,000 people in the 2004 tsunami, you reply : “Oh, the 230,000” – as if it were an afterthought, a minor detail which you almost overlooked. Won’t work, Jim. You know this is the heart of the matter, the whole point of the original post “On the Feast of Stephen” and of your waffling ever since. Not only do you refuse to answer the accusation that you are as blindly fanatical as the pathological preacher , Rev. Jerry Falwell, who saw 9/11 as God’s deliberate punishment of “sinful” people, but you dare to suggest the following absurdities :
1. People, like the 230,000, should be “ready … for unexpected death”. The point, Jim, is not that they naïvely didn’t expect to die in a sudden tsunami. The point is – other readers will pardon this, to them, unnecessary explanation – that you blithely accept that your loving God deliberately killed them ! The victims, you suggest, should not have been surprised : God, your God of love, can wipe us out any time He likes !
2. The slaughter was a nice gesture on God’s part, because these folks had had it “hard on earth” and are now “infinitely better off in Heaven”. How divinely kind of Him ! Deo Gratias ! Te Deum laudamus ! “O God, please kill me now so that I can enjoy a better life in Heaven !” Jim, my poor Jim, do you realize that this is insane ? Our readers do.
3. Just in case some of the 230,000 were not Christians (even Pascal would find that a fair bet in a country with the world’s largest Muslim population and in Buddhist South-East Asia), not to worry. God will give them a fair go, a fair judgement. See ? He is a God of Love after all !
I will make no further comments on your scandalous, pitiable image of the Monster of the Bible and its Deluge, of the imaginary despotic divinity whom you expect people to believe in and to trust. The discussion is closed. But, although I have, according to you, already, albeit inadvertently, answered your Yes/No question, I will not avoid an explicit answer the way you do : NO, there is “no intelligence … involved with (the creation of) the Universe and humanity”.
Please don’t bother coming back with : “I thought so, Frank. So you actually believe it just happened ?” My dear Jim, yes – pending further evidence as to how it happened. (We already know that there is no answer to “why ?”. Check out the madly, pointlessly expanding Universe, the death of stars and the extinction of terrestrial species.) Give us a break, mate. You just don’t, won’t, get it. Whatever I say, you always fall back on (a) There must be an Intelligent First Cause, and (b) God’s ways are impenetrable. Keep the faith, Jim. (You know the rest.)
LikeLike
I do hope Jim has a very long lunch.
Jim also seems to he fascinated by numbers – in part his argument seems to rely on the sheer weight of numbers who claim to “believe”.
I was innocently looking recently into the question of the number of people murdered by the various Inquisitions (I mentioned it in passing in a recent post but Jim conveniently ignored the matter). A “Catholic” site I consulted rightly dismissed estimates of millions but then surprisingly seemed to argue that because their estimate was “only” about 10,000 it was a matter of not much significance.
One murder or 10,000 at the instigation of Jim’s church and in the name of his loving “God” is no laughing matter. I will not be surprised if Jim comes back with some spurious justification.
In fact he reminds me of the bloke who consulted his psychiatrist saying “Doc, I’m into sado-masochism, necrophilia and bestiality – what’s wrong with me?” His doc replied “You’re flogging a dead horse”.
Keep flogging Jim.
LikeLike
If the Big Bang theory, formulated by Father Georges Le Maitre , survives the test of time for a few more decades, it would not contradict, but indeed support Genesis. My understanding is that the prior steady state universe was favoured by atheists, who were disturbed by the Catholic priest’s mathematical analysis and conclusions from the data. Both the theory and Genesis support a moment of creation, from a point, and the objects of our universe emerged over time, from inanimate to plant life to animal life to mankind; Nothing there of conflict.
It indicated a moment of creation, a beginning of space and time. Theists greeted the theory as an alternate, devoid of a moment corresponding to “Let there be..”.
We also expect, for example, that the mention of placing of sun and moon had a secondary purpose to scorn belief in the supposed deities of other races. .
Multitudes of bible students pore over these matters, and it does not trouble me,
I think you have your facts back to front when you say that theists are positing God as an explanation for the Big Bang, which was postulated 3400 years after Genesis.
To be fair, you should acknowledge that the Big Bang fits nicely with the Genesis account of God’s creative moment.
Let’s What if the singularity was traced to where planet earth sits. That would ruffle some atheist feathers. A nice twist, who knows?
As for God’s attributes, I thought you were familiar enough with Thomas’ 5 proofs to realise that they are not just nice thoughts but follow necessarily from his philosophical proofs.
We also know from the brief appearance of God in the form of Jesus, what the nature of man is, and the perfection of these attributes in the life of Christ.
So, in many ways, Thom, I am surprised at the superficiality of your understanding of the teachings of your former Faith, which I had believed you to have previously mastered.
I’m a mere engineer by training, but find complete rationality in Catholic belief, plus an unshakeable conviction that the Western world is doomed without the strong Catholic influence, which has been its foundation and support.
Where has a godless society succeeded?
LikeLike
Thom.
The Church did not kill any in the inquisition. It was the responsibility of the state to try, convict and carry out punishment.
I understand the figure to be hundreds, but they vary from different sources.
Try “Defend the Faith” by Robert Haddad. He researches his information well.
Accounts of Galileo, inquisition and crusades, are probably the 3 most prized events, loved by opponents to wildly exaggerate and distort, to attack the Church.
In 2,000 years surviving in a world, often hostile to uncomfortable truths, there are isolated events that could be handled better by fallible humans.
You must remember that it is not God who commits the errors of excess zeal, but His imperfect followers. It takes a little practice to turn the other cheek.
Atheistic regimes, of course, under Stalin, Pot etc. show us the superior morality of godlessness. 50 years or so of survival of various atheistic regimes, accounting for tens of millions of deaths and injustices, compared with relatively few in 2000 years of Christianity.
Apply a bit of unbiased judgement and fairness. Where’s your rationality?
LikeLike
As I had predicted Jim comes back with a self-serving gloss. You shame yourself with your nonsense.
LikeLike
Jim’s pathetic and frankly scandalous defence of his Church’s role in the Inquisition has modern parallels in the Australian Catholic Church’s actions in avoiding its responsibilities in connection with the sexual abuse crisis in the Church. As readers would be aware the Catholic Church in Australia in the important case of Ellis v Pell used a legal loophole to avoid its responsibilities by arguing that it, the Church, did not in fact exist. That was a shameful resort worthy of the shameful response that Jim made concerning the murders of the Inquisition.
LikeLike
Thom,
1. Do you agree with the long awaited admission by Frank, above? Would you phrase your response the same?
Quote: “NO, there is “no intelligence … involved with (the creation of) the Universe and humanity”.
2. I’ll always defend the word of God against deliberate, predictable distortions and exaggerations by enemies of the truth.
3. Maybe you should make better use of your talents and divert your energies to actually do some good for humanity and defend the unborn, and families against the violent campaigns by the less informed. Maybe you could help some Catholic organisation, who provide by far, the most worldwide aid to the needy.
4. Did Chris Dawkins, the revered guru of atheism, and an idol of Frank, not claim that paedophilia is not that bad?
5. You should also study how the Catholic Church built western civilisation.
Hmm!
LikeLike
I could well throw back at you, Jim, the challenge which the eponymous founder of your Church posed. Abandon all and go follow him.
But I will refrain in a spirit of rational charity.
LikeLike