Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[PRmerger]

After reviewing post #306, it appears to me that your statements are in response to AA.

Very well, then. I will clarify.

I, as the author of post #306, was not calling anyone on this forum stupid.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m sorry but you still aren’t answering my question.

You don’t know the whys and hows of the physical universe, you don’t know how it starts, you don’t know how it ends, you don’t know your own ultimate interaction with it, and you don’t know EVERYTHING about it, yet you insist on it and it alone as reality?

And I did NOT state the ‘assumption’ that you made.

I stated that you are judging things by a standard of truth. What even gave you the idea of what is and isn’t true, and how you judge whether something contradicts that when you don’t even know everything about physical reality? How did ‘physical reality’ become your truth?

Remember, up until about 100 or so years ago, physical reality demonstrated over and over that flying was impossible. What physical reality are you talking about? Your physical reality changes from decade to decade and century to century and what was ‘real’ at one time isn’t real another. How true can that be?

And again, how did humanity, which by your physical reality came about by chance, come to believe in truth at all?

I really wish you’d address what I actually try to discuss with you instead of restating (incorrectly at that) what you THINK I said and then tearing it down. That’s too much like strawman arguments and I know you are more than capable of discoursing intelligently on real arguments.

My worldview does not require that I have absolute knewledge.

 

[PRmerger]

Very well, then. I will clarify.

I, as the author of post #306, was not calling anyone on this forum stupid.

And I will also add, that if I tell someone that I’m not Chinese, and he continues to say things such as, “Well, you *look *like you are. So…”

well, then, I would give him a withering look and stop the conversation cold.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And I don’t expect an objective view on science from a scientist.

The scientific method is not an ideology:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, we don’t want to make the same mistake that AA meant in his comment on Catholics.

Both Catholics (and scientists) are perfectly capable of giving an intelligent, reasoned, truthful and informative view about Catholicism --or science.

The problem comes in assuming that because a person is a Catholic–or a scientist, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a man, or a woman, etc. etc., that the person cannot give an OBJECTIVE view because of an extreme ‘bias’.

Now it would be silly to say (I think) that a woman cannot give an objective view of what it’s like to be a woman–that only a MAN could be objective about women. Don’t you think?
Isn’t it just as silly to say that a Catholic cannot give an objective view of Catholicism–that only a non-Catholic, be he Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, atheist etc–can be objective about Catholicism?

For if a Catholic is supposedly biased TOWARD the religion he or she professes, is not a non-Catholic equally, or even more, biased AGAINST or in OPPOSITION to that religion?

If bias is something which precludes objectivity, then the bias AGAINST something should be equally suspect as the bias toward, don’t you think?

And being a man or a woman certainly does not count as a idealogy (i.e. system of beliefs).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, that would depend on what you want to call science or objective (this is from the point of view of Philosophy of Science)

If we’re looking at it from a Kuhnian point of view, then there is no objective view on science and we use science as long as it works. Not only that, but you can’t compare and contrast difference views of science because they are incommensurable, so one person saying their science is “correct” is just working within their own paradigm.

If you look at it from the point of view of Lakatos, there are different views of science, research programs, that you can compare based on how it’s doing (progressing or degenerating). But scientists can stick to a degenerating research program as long as they want.

Or, we can go with Feyerabend in that there is no such thing as objectivity and that science is what you make of it. What paradigm you choose is completely arbitrary and just as scientific as any other paradigm (I guess you can call his view the scientific analogue of spiritualism).

Logically speaking, the only objective and logical way to do science is to disprove things (falsificationism, Popper’s baby) . There is nothing logical about trying to prove things.

Those who put their faith in science are in fact just treating it as a religion. All scientific ideas have fundamental and metaphysical assumptions built into them, scientists just don’t like to admit it. Current science just seems to look for good correlation between cause and effect. Bayesianism can give you a probabilistic way of seeing how good the correlation is, but it’s not a confirmation.

Protip: Learning Philosophy of Science will ruin your views of science and make you question everything about it.

No.
Modern technology is based on science.
The existence of things like cell phones are proof of its validity.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So…Why do we still have folks who continue to question and debate this question? I thought that the Holy Father had made it pretty clear when he said that the Church did not have the power to ordain women. He said “No.” If this woman claims to be Catholic, then she should understand that the Church does not ordain women because of an inate prejudice, but that it does not have the power nor authority to do so. She is like a child kicking her feet and screaming Why! Why! Why!? If, as a Catholic, she believes that the Holy Father has final and supreme authority, then she needs to be still and go about her business.** Then, there’s always the Episcopalians, where you can be any gender you please**.

Catholicism places restrictions on what gender people are allowed to be?
I guess you learn something new every day

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My worldview does not require that I have absolute knewledge.

And again, you haven’t answered my question.

If you don’t require absolute knowledge, you certainly must use SOME sort of judgment to decide ‘for’ atheism’ and ‘against’ theism. However, many very eminent scientists and those who worked closely with the physical ‘reality’ have been theists as well.

What makes you so certain (since you know you do NOT have absolute knowledge) that your view is more ‘correct’ than another?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

After reading a very thought-provoking 22 pages on this topic, I have to say, PRMerger, that you have stooped too low. Everybody knows that resorting to attacks on a person’s grammar and writing skills, is petty and uncalled for in an intelligent discussion. It is very likely the reason for his withdrawal from the discussion. For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree with AngryAtheist’s views and arguments and agree with everything you have said until you attacked his writing skills.

And I most emphatically do NOT believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood or the diaconate.

I don’t mind, I am actually pretty thick skinned.
Moreover, I don’t think women should be Catholic priests either.
Frankly I think Catholicism is too much of a boys club for it to work.

Women who want to be priests should simply leave.
I believe that ultimately, that would make everyone more happy.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And again, you haven’t answered my question.

If you don’t require absolute knowledge, you certainly must use SOME sort of judgment to decide ‘for’ atheism’ and ‘against’ theism. However, many very eminent scientists and those who worked closely with the physical ‘reality’ have been theists as well.

What makes you so certain (since you know you do NOT have absolute knowledge) that your view is more ‘correct’ than another?

Like everyone else, I am ultimately reliant on what I have observed and been taught for what I know

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And being a man or a woman certainly does not count as a idealogy (i.e. system of beliefs).

Oh? So you would then say that a person of scientific beliefs --say a botanist–cannot be trusted to speak of botany?

Or is it only RELIGIOUS beliefs? Why?

Why not literary beliefs? Why not musical beliefs? Or sociological beliefs?

If we have seen only one thing demonstrated here, we have seen that you --the ‘physical realist’ who complains of the bias and intransigence and absolutism of theists-- are yourself the one who has shown more bias and intransigence and absolute repudiation of the idea of theism than any theist has shown toward you or your point of view****

I mean, it’s not we theists who say that a person’s beliefs automatically disqualify them as objective. . .it’s YOU! The non-absolutist is giving an ABSOLUTE STATEMENT that a theist can’t be trusted to be objective. I find that pretty intolerant on your part.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Like everyone else, I am ultimately reliant on what I have observed and been taught for what I know

So you could have been taught wrongly and observed poorly, correct?

Your knowledge is based on pure chance, isn’t it? Had you been born in a different time, to different parents, in a different culture. . .if at any point you had made any one of a million different decisions even in this life, you could have turned out ‘differently’.

So you arrived in a universe which was made through chance, your entire life is built on random chance. . .and yet, the observations you made about the world aren’t made ‘by chance’ in that you don’t walk out the door and find yourself walking upside down. . . because there are absolute (if you will) forces in the physical universe. Some of which you are aware of, and some of which you are not. (Unless you think there will never be any further scientific discoveries to be made).

Pretty interesting that your ‘chance’ is so, um, ‘structured’, isn’t it?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh? So you would then say that a person of scientific beliefs --say a botanist–cannot be trusted to speak of botany?

Or is it only RELIGIOUS beliefs? Why?

Why not literary beliefs? Why not musical beliefs? Or sociological beliefs?

If we have seen only one thing demonstrated here, we have seen that you --the ‘physical realist’ who complains of the bias and intransigence and absolutism of theists-- are yourself the one who has shown more bias and intransigence and absolute repudiation of the idea of theism than any theist has shown toward you or your point of view****

I mean, it’s not we theists who say that a person’s beliefs automatically disqualify them as objective. . .it’s YOU! The non-absolutist is giving an ABSOLUTE STATEMENT that a theist can’t be trusted to be objective. I find that pretty intolerant on your part.

Thank you

I admit that my experiences have left me somewhat biased against religion in general. Nevertheless it is my firm belief that religions are different from (many) other belief systems and social groups because their primary purpose is to control people.

Of course, I am not perfect, and I could be wrong.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So you could have been taught wrongly and observed poorly, correct?
Your knowledge is based on pure chance, isn’t it? Had you been born in a different time, to different parents, in a different culture. . .if at any point you had made any one of a million different decisions even in this life, you could have turned out ‘differently’.

So you arrived in a universe which was made through chance, your entire life is built on random chance. . .and yet, the observations you made about the world aren’t made ‘by chance’ in that you don’t walk out the door and find yourself walking upside down. . . because there are absolute (if you will) forces in the physical universe. Some of which you are aware of, and some of which you are not. (Unless you think there will never be any further scientific discoveries to be made).

Pretty interesting that your ‘chance’ is so, um, ‘structured’, isn’t it?

Yes, and the same applies to you:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So you could have been taught wrongly and observed poorly, correct?

Your knowledge is based on pure chance, isn’t it? Had you been born in a different time, to different parents, in a different culture. . .if at any point you had made any one of a million different decisions even in this life, you could have turned out ‘differently’.

So you arrived in a universe which was made through chance, your entire life is built on random chance. . .and yet, the observations you made about the world aren’t made ‘by chance’ in that you don’t walk out the door and find yourself walking upside down. . . because there are absolute (if you will) forces in the physical universe. Some of which you are aware of, and some of which you are not. (Unless you think there will never be any further scientific discoveries to be made).

Pretty interesting that your ‘chance’ is so, um, ‘structured’, isn’t it?

This also applies to you as well:shrug:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, and the same applies to you:shrug:

Actually, no, it doesn’t (nor does the next post) because unlike you, my world view does not teach that the world is a product of random chance nor that my life is based on nothing but random choice.****

So now where are you? If the same does NOT apply to me, then only you are the one who holds to a belief that has no long-term support (there are and have been far fewer beings who do not believe in some kind of god or in some kind of ‘reason’ for the universe to exist outside of chance).

After all, you may not choose to believe in events outside your physical reality.

But Jesus who is God not only created your physical reality, He ENTERED it.

So we have testimony about what is OUTSIDE our perceptions by someone who knows, and who communicated it to us.

That’s the big difference. We aren’t all about ‘the teachings’ so much as we’re all about the teacher. We follow the teachings because they lead to Him. He gave them to us because they’re like signposts on a highway.

In our physical reality, if we’re traveling a desert highway we know that mirages can exist, that we can become confused, wander off the highway, and die.

But if we have a good map, have fueled ourselves up and have food and drink ready, and keep referring to the map (because other people have traveled this highway and know the best way to get through it), we’re going to do lots better if we stick to the plan than somebody who goes off with a half tank of gas, no extra food, no idea of desert conditions, etc.

The person with the knowledge can still mess up, IF he disregards the map. If he sees the map showing a rest area in 30 miles, but it’s blazing hot and the tires are getting blistered, he may say, “Aw shoot, I can make it if I gun the vehicle” (even though the directions warn not to try to drive in such circumstances). . .then blow out the tires and wind up in a fireball wreck. If he gets out (taking precautions by wrapping his head with a wet cloth), changes the tires or adds air if needed, and proceeds slowly and cautiously, he may arrive later at the rest area than he might want, but he’ll arrive safely.

And the opposite can be true. The poor soul who goes off into the desert half cocked can wind up getting through. Maybe his car is just so well maintained he gets through. Maybe he’s lucky enough to find a car with a knowledgeable driver ahead who helps show him the way. But the odds will be stacked against him if he hasn’t made preparations.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, and the same applies to you

Actually, no, it doesn’t (nor does the next post) because unlike you, my world view does not teach that the world is a product of random chance nor that my life is based on nothing but random choice.****

So now where are you? If the same does NOT apply to me, then only you are the one who holds to a belief that has no long-term support (there are and have been far fewer beings who do not believe in some kind of god or in some kind of ‘reason’ for the universe to exist outside of chance).

After all, you may not choose to believe in events outside your physical reality.

But Jesus who is God not only created your physical reality, He ENTERED it.

So we have testimony about what is OUTSIDE our perceptions by someone who knows, and who communicated it to us.

That’s the big difference. We aren’t all about ‘the teachings’ so much as we’re all about the teacher. We follow the teachings because they lead to Him. He gave them to us because they’re like signposts on a highway.

In our physical reality, if we’re traveling a desert highway we know that mirages can exist, that we can become confused, wander off the highway, and die.

But if we have a good map, have fueled ourselves up and have food and drink ready, and keep referring to the map (because other people have traveled this highway and know the best way to get through it), we’re going to do lots better if we stick to the plan than somebody who goes off with a half tank of gas, no extra food, no idea of desert conditions, etc.

The person with the knowledge can still mess up, IF he disregards the map. If he sees the map showing a rest area in 30 miles, but it’s blazing hot and the tires are getting blistered, he may say, “Aw shoot, I can make it if I gun the vehicle” (even though the directions warn not to try to drive in such circumstances). . .then blow out the tires and wind up in a fireball wreck. If he gets out (taking precautions by wrapping his head with a wet cloth), changes the tires or adds air if needed, and proceeds slowly and cautiously, he may arrive later at the rest area than he might want, but he’ll arrive safely.

And the opposite can be true. The poor soul who goes off into the desert half cocked can wind up getting through. Maybe his car is just so well maintained he gets through. Maybe he’s lucky enough to find a car with a knowledgeable driver ahead who helps show him the way. But the odds will be stacked against him if he hasn’t made preparations.

I am saying that (like me) you could have been taught wrongly and observed poorly.
Unless of course you (and those who taught you) are perfect

 

[PRmerger]

I am saying that (like me) you could have been taught wrongly and observed poorly.
Unless of course you (and those who taught you) are perfect

Heh. That’s a great set up for a discussion on God, His Church, and the Infallibility of the Church.

But, yes, we do believe that the One who taught us IS perfect.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Heh. That’s a great set up for a discussion on God, His Church, and the Infallibility of the Church.

But, yes, we do believe that the One who taught us IS perfect.

And thus the doctrine of Papal Infallibility comes into play

But you do admit that no one in the history of the Church (except for Jesus and Mary) is perfect yes?

 

[PRmerger]

And thus the doctrine of Papal Infallibility comes into play

But you do admit that no one in the history of the Church (except for Jesus and Mary) is perfect yes?

Perfect? No.

Infallible? Yes.