Atheist Ireland Forum

Here's a little something I've sent off to Village magazine. Comments are welcome:

State policy should not be driven by religion

Despite claims to the contrary by members, the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and embryonic stem cell research is not about saving lives. It’s about saving souls.

Catholicism does not show the same kind of commitment to anti-war movements, road death prevention or the elimination of the death penalty, where it is still legal, as it does to preventing abortion. In history, the Church was quite ready to kill anybody who disagreed with it. Up to recently in Irish, state-run maternity hospitals, the life of a mother had no value beside that of an un-baptised foetus, and this only changed in response to massive public outcry about the bizarre situations it brought about in practice.

These facts are only explicable in the light of a belief that the soul is more important than mortal life, and that only baptism can save the soul. However, the soul cannot objectively be shown to exist and, for many people, it does not exist.

Catholics will say it’s a matter of faith and freedom of religion demands that their faith be respected. The problem arises when they can influence the incorporation of this faith into the laws of the land. Then everybody, Catholic, non-Catholic and those of no religion at all, are bound by the same principles. It’s as if, where it wants to force all citizens to conform to its beliefs by having them in legislation, it rejects the idea of religious tolerance.

The position is made worse by a refusal to recognise that those who hold a different view on these matters are moral, responsible people. Take away belief in the soul and their standpoint becomes more than reasonable, particularly relative to Catholicism’s historic attitude to adult human life.

According to the Church, you may not believe in the immortal soul, but you will be forced by the laws of the land to behave as if you did.

That’s not right.

CitizenPaine

Very good CP.

If you read the Vicars of Christ by Peter De Rosa its very instructive in tracing the devolepment of the vaticans thinking that led to their standpoint on these issues.

That goes without saying - for any normal adults.



Anyone (of the age of majority, i.e., over 18 who takes any real notice of the Catholic Church's definition of humanity, is effectively non compos mentis = insane!



We humans are not just a one-dimensional piece of meat, as it were. We are not merely material (physical) beings. We have our flesh and bones and skin and we also have our feelings and emotions, which some might describe as soul or spiritual.

Put it like this, I am vehemently opposed to organised religion - whether its called Roman Catholicism, or Christianity, or Islam, or Mormonism or Barneyism - or whatever. Yet, I don't perceive myself as a purely material, physical being. There is another dimension to me: my emotional being. I love and I hate, in equal measure, as it were. And often I feel indifferent to others. And when I die, that's it, I am dead. And when I'm dead, the only thing of me that lives on after me, is what I did when I was alive. When I was both body and soul, as it were.
I did what I did - good, bad and/or indifferent. So what? I lived my life to the best of my ability. To each according to his own....

I'll order it from Amazon immediately, if not sooner (Do they have it in your favourite bookshop, Eason's?)

CitizenPaine

Using the word soul to describe your unique(!) emotional characteristics is not a problem. The point of my contribution is that this entity is not immortal; the belief that it is, and that it is stained by original sin and must be babtised to be cleansed thereof, is causing untold damage to public health and individual (especially female) well-being throughout the world.

CitizenPaine

What is this 'thing' called the soul? It's a word that I wouldn't use too frequently because it is laden with religious and supernatural connotations. Are words like consciousness, personality, instinct, intellect etc too cumbersome for atheists? Why do we need such an all encompassing adjective with it's quasi religious meaning?

Sorry, Martha, I'm afraid that we are (merely physical beings). You need to read some more Dawkins along with other current writers on psychology and philosophy. These feelings and emothions are just chemical reactions whose purpose is to increase the chances of our genes surviving into future generations. Now any more of this talk about things like souls and we will have to refer to you as Sister Martha. It does have a certain ring.

When I use the word soul, - which is another word for mind or psyche - I'm well aware of its religious connotations, I'm not using it in that conventional sense. I'm using it to describe the feeling, emotional part of myself. My very being, if you like. And yes, I believe I am unique, complete with an (!) mark - just as you are and everybody else is - or ought to be (!). For example, my offspring might be similar to me, but they are uniquely themselves, as individuals. The only people who are so like their parents you can hardly tell them apart (except for their age difference) are those whose parents oppressed them into submitting to their belief system, when they were children.

One has to remember that the religionists have hijacked language to suit themselves. My mother tongue happens to be English, so unless I rapidly invent or learn another language, I'm going to have to use the words I know and understand to describe what it is I'm trying to convey to others. Too bad that some others interpret those words in a different way than I do.

I am well past the reproductive stage of my life, yet I still have strong feelings of love for my children, for example. Such feelings, or emotions have no purpose in terms of my personal chances of reproducing my genes - I've already done that - yet I still have them. These "chemical reactions" are part of what makes me human. If I didn't have them, then I wouldn't be human, in the proper sense of the word.

And, Father Brian, you may call me Sister Martha if you wish. Makes no difference to me

Never thought I would hear you disagreeing with the high priest Dawkins, Sr. Martha. Methinks you are an ala-carte athiest. If too many athiests start doing this sort of thing, the movement will fall apart.

Fr. Brian.

Brian, don't believe everything you were taught at school.
It's not always I before E except after C, ATHEIST.
And pray tell, just what is this "movement" that you think will fall apart?

It's downstairs in the religion section. Only 10 euros. I'm buying Christopher Hitchens a copy. Check out the John Waters funeral thread. He is going to debate Hitchens in the Gate in Parnell Sq. I'v bought 22 tickets. Hope you can go.

FXR
I see it crimson, I see it red.

I only bought two tickets but it looks like I'll be there tout seul. The other half has announced that I'll be going on my own (she saw Waters debating before and aparently wasn't all that impressed. What I might do is show her a video of Hitchens - that might change her mind).

BTW FXR: I owe you a pint.

CitizenPaine

Don't worry about it Seamus. By the way don't buy Vicars of Christ. I got a few copies for 7.60 each so I'll bring one with me for ya.

If your'e going to show herself a Hitchens video don't use the Hitchens/Hedges one because he doesn't come across well in it.