Whenever I hear politicians or other public speakers wind up a point by saying that it is “important”, I dismiss it as padding, a filler, a chance to catch one’s breath, a hollow anticlimax to all that they have just said. Without explanation, it is at best a vacuous value judgement. Unless they tell me WHY it is important, I consider the phrase as completely devoid of . . . importance.
But more . . . important is the adverb some TV journalists in particular use to modify the abused adjective : “incredibly”. If they said “immensely” it would remain an empty phrase but at least it would not emasculate the powerful word “incredible”. Something is incredible if it is unbelievable. The phrase “incredibly important” suggests that something is SO important that we would not believe just how important it is. But what it says is worse than that : it says it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe the degree of importance possessed by whatever the speaker is talking about.
Before you explode and tell me I am splitting hairs or do not recognize perfectly acceptable rhetorical hyperbole when I see it, let me tell you why I am losing my cool about a stupid adverb. This Blog’s subject is religion, belief, faith, credulity. Religions preach as facts things we atheists consider literally impossible to be true and impossible for us to believe – in a word, incredible. The word should be reserved for this purpose, along with all other claims that have no basis in reality. Some people expect us to give credence to the most outrageous propositions just as they do. But I will not take their word for it, just because they say it is a fact, anymore than I will accept incredible “events” recounted in their “sacred” writings and the groundless beliefs and promises with which they are filled.
I felt it very important, but not incredibly important – for the reasons I have given – to clarify all this. I would find it surprising and truly regrettable, but not incredible, that anyone could disagree with me – on this point at least . . .
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
Credible and incredible are subjective adjectives. What I find credible in Catholicism and incredible in atheism are the opposites of Frank. Then, again, what Frank, until well into middle age, found credible in Catholicism, he now finds incredible What has changed? As for me, I have never deviated, but grown in conviction as the emerging evidence expands.
LikeLike
Congratulations, Jim. I say that, for once, without irony. This has to be your most astute and finest comment yet. You are right on all counts (except in the three final words) . As an Aquarian – thank God neither of us believes in the nonsense of the zodiac and astrology, both of which we both find (subjectively) incredible – I will bring water to your mill, “de l’eau à ton moulin”. It would seem that until, indeed, middle age, I found Catholic beliefs … credible. Since then I find them incredible. To stretch the point, I even find it incredible now that I once found them credible. What happened ? We both know : giving these beliefs, for the first time, a thorough investigation, I realized there was absolutely no evidence for them. Moreover, I wonder whether I really did find them credible for the first half of my life. I accepted them, as you did, because I accepted blindly whatever priests, nuns and Marist Brothers taught us. Later, in Paris, when I began to question everything – as we all did in the sixties – I guess I continued to believe because my Professors did. Only after ten years in the States and profound personal analysis of Catholic beliefs did I realize they were incredible. Incredible to me. They are not to you. In fact you have “grown in conviction as the emerging evidence expands” (!!).
I am delighted and flattered to discover that you have continued reading the Blog. It is nice that we can talk to each other without shouting. You’re a good man, Jim. But a total mystery to me. How could anyone so intelligent . . . ? But I’ve said that before. Pax et bonum.
LikeLike
No, Thom, you don’t get what Frank and I have agreed. My belief is credible to me, it was once credible to Frank. So you may claim that as incredible to you, not absolutely incredible, as Frank has and I do prove.
LikeLike
You will have noticed, Jim, that Thom began his comment on my post on Patton (“I Was There – 2000 years ago !) by saying that it was an “incredible” post. He says re the current post that it is “truly incredible” that you should claim and believe that there is “emerging expanding evidence” for Catholicism. In each case he is using the word in one of its popular connotations. Ad primum : he finds my post not unbelievable but extraordinary, brilliant, “terrific” – another popular deformation of an epithet’s literal meaning. Ad secundum : he considers your claim about emerging expanding evidence confirming Catholicism not unbelievable but. . . hard to believe, amazing, shocking. It is not that my post on Patton or the fact that you claim there is new evidence for Catholicism are literally unbelievable. Thom is a renowned punster; he is playing with words. He would never have said that my post is “incredible” had I not launched a post about journos’ insufferable abuse of the language in qualifying something as “incredibly important”. If you like, he was having a crack at me, indulging in his favorite, friendly sport. Here, a little more seriously, he is – like me – expressing his surprise (and frustration) that a man of your intelligence could accept, believe in, the so-called new “evidence” for Catholicism – which you find credible and which we find incredible.
Readers must be beginning to say to themselves that the three of us are clearly retired intellectuals, old fogies, with a lot of time on their hands. Indeed it is a pity to have to devote so much time to such byzantine discussions. I should be spending it writing my next post on Indulgences (you’ll love it, mate !). Then again, if we do not agree on the meaning of the words we use . . . One final point, Jim : if you say that credibility is subjective, how can something be “absolutely incredible” ?
LikeLike
How can I return to my nasty atheistophobic,bigoted self after those reconciliatory words?
Everyone who disagrees with us, the politically correct, these days, is (xxx).ophobic or bigoted.
In his letter to time magazine,Frank stated “…both Islam and Christianity can not be right”. Once again we agree. No phobia just yet!
Indeed, only one at most of Islam, Atheism, Christianity and any other faith/non faith can possibly be true.
Is there, indeed, an absolute truth? One can not claim, of course,as an absolute truth, that there is not.
The question is: which of the contenders can claim the Truth?
A central piece of my Christian conviction is that Jesus Christ claimed to be “The Truth”. No other faith is founded on such a claim from One who claimed also to be God, and provided substantial evidence, before, during and subsequent to His human life span.
Islam, or large parts of Islam, accept the virgin birth of Jesus, honour Mary and regard Jesus as a good man, authoritative teacher and the greatest prophet prior to Mahomed. However, they believed that He tricked another to die in His place on the cross. Now, is that final deception consistent with the greatest prophet etc. I ask you?
The world could be a far more peaceful one today, but for that flaw in reasoning.
Mahomed does not claim to be God. Christianity is unique in that claim for its founder. Atheism claims there is no God, so the deity of Jesus is irrelevant to it.
Frank, in his Time letter also stated that atheists dismiss that any sacred writing is literally the word of God.
That is hardly a revelation, Frank, as God does not exist in the first place, right?!
Perhaps shadows of former belief still cloud your mind? Why can’t they go away?
LikeLike
It is not surprising, Jim, and certainly not incredible, that you capitalized on my “Islam and Christianity cannot both be right”. I am afraid you missed the irony in the conclusion of my Letter (a reprint of my earlier post) – not to say the “in cauda venenum”, the “poison in the tail” : if people in glass houses should not throw stones, the Catholic Church should not attack Islam for its “immutable dogmatism”. Catholicism has indeed recognized a few of its disastrous errors, notably geocentrism demolished by Galileo, but will never budge on, say, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be true because both are wrong. It is not “either-or” but “both-and”. You write : “Which of the contenders can claim the Truth ?” You missed the point, mate. Clearly the answer is “neither”.
Hey, Jude, about the “word of God” : do I have to put the three-letter word in inverted commas every time I use it ? And you sink to saying “Perhaps shadows of former belief still cloud your mind ?” C’mon, Jim, you have reverted to your old self. I’d like to think the phrase is an attempt at irony, but I’m afraid you say it seriously. For a moment I had hoped . . .
Frustrated Frank
LikeLike
The return of the Dark Knight with his narrowly focussed ray of lightness has prompted me too to comment on the question of credibility..
It is perfectly credible that Frank, an intelligent well educated inquisitive fellow, should question what he was told as a child and adolescent.
What is not credible and hence is incredible is that an intelligent fellow like the Dark Knight Lumen can claim that the emerging expanding evidence confirms and reinforces the same indoctrination that Frank has rejected. Truly incredible.
LikeLike
The white queen fears a fatal attack by the Dark Knight on her king, who is left in a vulnerable position, due to her faux pas, and must be defended.
Now the White King will be most annoyed with the blunder of his Queen for contradicting what he has just agreed, in a gentlemanly fashion, with the advancing Black Knight.
Your denial of your King’s magnanimous agreement with his adversary will be punished. Your crime is to disagree with the King in your assertion: ‘what is…. incredible is that an intelligent fellow like the Dark Knight Lumen can claim that the emerging expanding evidence confirms and reinforces the same indoctrination that Frank has rejected’.
The fact that I do claim it, means that it can not be incredible per se, but can only be claimed incredible ‘to yourself’. Get it? Ask Frank if you still don’t see it.
Now, if only that pawn, atheist meow hadn’t strayed off with the ‘Tom’ cat, and was still beside the King, then good old Queenie would not need to rush to his defense.
Chess is an incredible game when the opponent is on the run… oops to me.
LikeLike
If you take the trouble to check mate you will find that the White King has and had the game wrapped up with his last brilliant play – a lay down misere by the sharpest card in the pack. The dark horse was rendered riderless, the hapless knight being despatched to the dark night of the soul – which is nowhere man!
LikeLike
Frank says:
Catholicism has indeed recognized a few of its disastrous errors, notably geocentrism demolished by Galileo, but will never budge on, say, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be true because both are wrong. It is not “either-or” but “both-and”. You write : “Which of the contenders can claim the Truth ?” You missed the point, mate. Clearly the answer is “neither”.
Response:
1.If Galileo is the most important criticism of Catholic teaching in 2,000 years, I’d claim that as proof of divine guidance. Neither was right in the end, but it’s hardly a matter of religious significance. For the record, Father Copernicus first proposed heliocentricism, followed a decade later by Galileo, and neither was correct. I’m surprised, but delighted that you can still not find a stronger criticism.
2.The Real Presence remains a central belief, and no Galileo has managed to topple it.
Do you prefer the concept of spiritual presence, pansubstantiation or ?? Did you ever really believe what you were doing at the altar? Surely you would not deceive those faithful souls.
I know you scoff at Euucharistic miracles, not only from 8th century, but those of recent decades in Poland, Argentine etc. As I have said, scientific analysis can now confirm amazing phenomena. You are, no doubt aware of the amazing findings by recent analytical methods of the Tilma of Juan Diego. On top of that, the ongoing evidence from the Shroud.
You and Thom may scoff but you do not explain.
3.You have omitted my inclusion of atheism as a contender for the Truth together with Islam and Christianity or perhaps another.The choice was not polar, so your response clearly can not be, as you say, “Clearly neither”.
My question is, then whether atheism or none of above is your answer. In which case do you say there is no absolute truth? Is that, then, absolutely true? Perhaps you claim atheism as the absolute truth.
I think I would prefer agnosticism, as it admits that the question is open. The danger to an atheist is that this would not preclude a divine presence and the possibility, even probability of some reality apart from the purely material .It’s much more comforting to ban such impure thoughts. Indeed, stick to atheism, enjoy whatever fills your day and pretend that reality is an imagination.
LikeLike
Rather than rehash all this old stuff, Jim, allow me to break a little new ground : do you believe in the Illuminati ? 20% of French people do. I’d be interested in your response.
LikeLike
White Queen says:
Quite correct. The fact that Frank does, in fact, concur with your belief, makes your belief credible.
The conclusions that result from that reflection is altogether another question of credibility. The conclusions of Frank and yourself are, to me, incredible.
I also, naturally, questioned my childhood beliefs as I matured, and still do. I also continually apply the beliefs to observation of the world and people. I am quite happy and at peace with my choice. As has been quoted by Fr.John Powell “The Catholic faith gives a reason to live and a reason to die”..
.
You do not appear credible in the way you invariably react to any evidence which I present. You never challenge with counter argument. You scoff and have even boldly deny established fact, which indicates to me that your mind is closed and/or you fear to grapple with the truth.
LikeLike
You concluded your response above, Frank, by
If you read carefully, that is exactly the advice I was giving to Thom. So, once again, we agree.
Further, in your other response, you state .
Response:I do believe you should make your meaning clear, otherwise your statement re word of God is fair game, not a guessing game. You seek wriggle room to make a statement, then slide away from the literal meaning as necessary. It will not wash, mon ami.
In the context, I consider it fair to question possible reasons behind such a mid life change of direction. White has become black. Your extreme sensitivity to my suggestion, while disappointing, is indeed interesting in itself.
You must realise the deeply offensive and blasphemous remarks you and Thom have made. Very little sensitivity to belief of others is displayed. So,please be balanced.
I would prefer to continue civilized, constructive dialogue but please remember your rugged Australian roots, where we can respectfully say what we think without fear of offense to supersensitive souls. We don’t play the” offense” tactic.
I don’t mind in the slightest if you question influences that may have distorted my mind. Why have I boringly stuck to the unilluminated path which I find so satisfying?Go ahead.
You have adopted France as your home and I always regard France as my second home. I have had extensive contact with French in joint projects and have noticed one characteristic in negotiating contracts: When in a corner, they may revert to the ‘personal offense’ pretence, or even offense to their patrie. You can imagine how that works with Australians. I have one particular hilarious memory of a backfire.The French negotiator, whose Company I was supporting, believed, at a break in the meeting that He had succeeded by this ploy and phoned the French office of his success. I tried to caution him, as I suspected a calm before a tornado.The meeting resumed. A fierce,double barrel assault ensued and the poor victim had to humbly reverse his previous report,confessing his dismal failure to escape contractual obligations of his employer. That said, Pax et bonum,. Bonne fete nationale!
LikeLike
The only point worthy of a comment concerns my “offensive, blasphemous” remarks. I have many times expressed my regret that “Ridenda religio” creates collateral damage and that I would prefer to respect “primum non nocere”. But I do not call a spade an instrument for digging, nor nonsense another point of view worthy of respect. I hung up my kid gloves years ago. My target, once again, is not little old ladies in tennis shoes but BOTB who can be jolted into recognizing just how ridiculous their remaining beliefs are.
LikeLike
I omitted pasting, in my preceding comment the referenced responses by you, to which I was replying. My apologies. I have therefore inserted and repeated as necessary below:
You concluded your response above, Frank, by:
“One final point, Jim : if you say that credibility is subjective, how can something be “absolutely incredible” ?
If you read carefully, that is exactly the advice I was giving to Thom. So, once again, we agree
Further, in your other response, you state .
-Hey, Jude, about the “word of God” : do I have to put the three-letter word in inverted commas every time I use it ? And you sink to saying “Perhaps shadows of former belief still cloud your mind ?” C’mon, Jim, you have reverted to your old self.
Response: I do believe you should make your meaning clear, otherwise your statement re ‘word of God’ is fair game, not a guessing game. You seek wriggle room to make a statement, then slide away from the literal meaning as necessary. It will not wash, mon ami.
In the context, I consider it fair to question possible reasons behind such a mid life change of direction. White has become black. Your extreme sensitivity to my suggestion, while disappointing, is indeed interesting in itself.
You must realise the deeply offensive and blasphemous remarks you and Thom have made. Very little sensitivity to belief of others is displayed. So, please be balanced.
I would prefer to continue civilized, constructive dialogue but please remember your rugged Australian roots, where we can respectfully say what we think without fear of offense to supersensitive souls. We don’t play the “offense” tactic.
I don’t mind in the slightest if you question influences that may have distorted my mind. Why have I boringly stuck to the unilluminated path which I find so satisfying?Go ahead.
LikeLike