Hacker News Reader

Comment by mathw | Hacker News Reader

A Catholic friend of mine really does not like what Pope Francis is doing. Really, really does not like it.

I haven't asked him for details, because we have to work together in a music group and if we fall out the chances are the whole thing stops happening (it's a very small group playing instruments very few people can play). But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.

Of course, as an atheist, I can't really comment, other than the slightly surreal nature of all these people worrying about interpretations of a fictional document and inspirations from a non-existent entity.

In fact, this kind of thing could be taken as further evidence that God is a fiction.

View on HN

My Grandma, back in Italy, despises him too, but still respects him. She has his picture on her bedside table, nonetheless, because of course he's still the Pope. Her rationale is simple: the Pope should be a detached quasi-divine figure: from her old Italian woman point of view he's pope-ing wrong. But again, he's still the Pope, so "he must be right".

Your grandma has class. Poles who don't like Francis (i.e. most of them) don't have a photo of him, and don't respect him. When he was on a pilgrimage in Poland, church-related media focused on everything except what he was saying.

I think "most of them" is quite a stretch. There indeed is a faction in Poland despising (or openly opposing) Francis, but from what I've witnessed, they seem to be a (vocal) minority. Anyway, that's from an atheist point of view, so probably not very informed.

> In fact, this kind of thing could be taken as further evidence that God is a fiction.

OTOH, it's been joked that there must be a God, because how else could the Church have survived nearly 2,000 years of all this [stuff]? I know, I know, the joke doesn't withstand critical scrutiny, but still ....

Riffing on that subject at the risk of going off-topic: The existence of some kind of Creator finds at least some support in the continuing evolution of the universe from the so-called Big Bang into local areas of greater and greater complexity. (This is a variation on the Weak Anthropic Principle [0].)

This continuing cosmic evolution seems consistent with the [EDIT:] conjecture that our universe is part of some kind of Great Project, in which it could be said that we're project workers — as Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner put it, we're created co-creators.

Personally I find this conjecture to be exciting and awe-inspiring — but only to the extent that it can be kept evidence-based [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hefner

[2] Self-cite: http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.... — see also the comments to that piece.

> That seems consistent with the notion that our universe is (at least part of) some kind of Great Project

Being consistent with something is not an argument for that thing. There is an infinite supply of mutually inconsistent hypotheses you can trivially generate for anything that's yet unknown that are consistent with what is known. Universe-creating unicorn-pixies that like drinking coffee are consistent with the big bang as well (a big bang happens when they drinkg coffee!). That doesn't tell you anything.

OK, I'll replace "notion" with "conjecture." But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies, whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause, the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible. (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover#First_cause

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

> But the extant evidence doesn't support coffee-drinking pixies

Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee.

> whereas until someone can convincingly explain how an effect doesn't need a cause

No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps. If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that.

> the First-Cause argument [3] for the existence of some kind of Creator [4] remains plausible

If you mean "plausible" in the sense of "consistent": See above. True, but doesn't get you anywhere.

If you mean "plausible" as in "is an argument in support of": No. An argument that does in no way demonstrate the existence of a creator cannot be used to support the hypothesis of the existence of a creator. If everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe has a beginning, then the universe has a cause. That's it. You don't get to just make up that that cause is some sort of "creator".

> (Those who say the universe just is, are making the same kind of conjecture, no?)

Most likely, they don't say that the universe "just is" in the first place. More likely you are misrepresenting the position that someone doesn't know what initiated (for lack of a better term) the big bang. And that is the only honest position to hold if you don't know.

> Please point out at least one empirically established fact that contradicts universe-creating unicorn pixies that drink coffee.

Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

> No, nothing is justified by "util we know the answer", that is what is called the god of the gaps.

Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.

> If you don't know whether every effect needs a cause, you don't know, and that's it, you don't get to just make up anything in addition to that.

I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.

In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models. My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project, in which we're participants, and (B) that we best participate in that project by (1) facing the facts, and (2) seeking the best for our neighbors as we do for ourselves [5]. I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it both appealing and useful.

[5] This is a rewording of the Summary of the Law in Luke 10:25-28, which itself is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18.

> Nope. See Russell's Teapot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere.

> Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.

Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis.

> I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.

Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality.

> In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models.

True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree?

> My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project

Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?

> I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful.

Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?

> Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?

Not especially. I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.

(For what it's worth, in church I don't say the creeds past the "[maker] of all that is, seen and unseen," because the remainder is either sheer speculation or actively contradicted by the available evidence.)

> Not especially.

So, why call it a creator then? If it doesn't have any properties besides having kicked off the universe, then it might as well be a primordial rock, couldn't it? Or universe-creating unicorn-pixies, for that matter. So, why use a word that seems to imply some sort of agency, probably intelligence, conciousness? That seems to me to be a highly confusing use of language, implying all sorts of baggage that's not really representative of what you seem to believe!? Wouldn't "the cause of the universe" be a much less confusing term to label this thing, that would be far less prone to being misinterpreted by the average person?

> I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.

Well, nice conjecture ... any reason to think it's more than a conjecture?

We're going in circles.

> any reason to think it's more than a conjecture?

It provides me with a certain comfort — a sense of meaning, if you will — to imagine that I'm contributing my infinitesimal bit to a Great Project. This might be just a personal emotional- or psychological quirk; I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is. If others find the Great Project concept useful or helpful, great. If someone comes up with something more plausible, I'm all ears.

> It provides me with a certain comfort

Does the fact that some idea provides comfort have any effect on whether that idea is actually true?

If I find the idea comfortable, say, that I will inherit a million bucks next year, does that have any influence on whether I will in fact inherit a million bucks?

> I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is.

But

(a) does the possible existence of a placebo effect for some belief actually make the belief true?

(b) what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo? Analogously to how responsible medical practitioners should not prescribe a placebo if the placebo treatment conflicts with treatment of a more fundamental condition, even if the placebo would have some positive effects.

> Does the fact that some idea provides comfort have any effect on whether that idea is actually true?

Actually, yes, but not in the sense you might mean: I'm not the least bit comforted by explanations of life that sound nice but also assume facts not in evidence. For example: I take no comfort in the notion — because I've seen no evidence and have no reason to believe — that a divine "being" has a plan for my life; that when I die I'll go to Heaven if I'm good or to Hell if I'm not; etc.

> what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo?

A valid question. The main thing I do is discuss these matters with others — such as you — and try to keep an open mind to new evidence and new insights, in part because I like to know how things really work. (A corollary to the First Commandment is: Face the facts: Live in the world that the (hypothetical) Creator wrought, as opposed to the world we imagine, or wish, existed.)

In that vein: I used to be a total agnostic, until our then-rector asked an insightful question about physics that got me thinking and studying for several years, which eventually led to my working around to my present set of conjectures. See generally "Why I Still Call Myself a Christian and an Episcopalian (2005) (self-cite) http://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse....

The First-Cause argument is invalid.

In that argument everything except the creator has a cause. It posits an uncaused effect (creator->universe), instead of just an uncaused effect (universe). Universe + creator introduces an unnecessary complication (the creator) vs simply having an uncaused universe. It doesn't get rid of the causality violation.

There's no way to have a beginning without violating causality. You either posit an infinite universe (eg eternal inflation models of the Big Bang) or you accept an uncaused effect. Trading one uncaused effect for another doesn't get you anywhere.

The problem with this conjecture is that even as the Churches try to keep orthodoxy, the varieties of Abrahamic faiths keep schism-ing into different faiths exponentially due to incompatible doctrines, which is on par with what we would expect with opinion not based on evidence; compare that against natural philosophy.

I don't think it's a problem with the Creator conjecture itself, but with the theological encrustations, lacking anything resembling real-world evidentiary support, that people keep attaching to that conjecture. Example: Compare the elaborate theology, christology, and soteriology of the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, on the one hand, against the pretty-simple statements attributed in the Synoptic Gospels to Y'shua of Nazareth, a.k.a. Jesus. (I discount heavily the statements attributed to him in the Fourth Gospel [0].)

[0] See "Synoptic Christians vs. John Christians: A Critique," at http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite).

The Bible is not a fictional document if that is what you were implying. Its contents may be, but as a book we have copies dating back to AD 700 at least without major differences. It is an historical artifact in itself.

Being a historical artifact doesn't rule out that it's a fictional document.

Did you read my comment?

I think the point was that a real document really exists is not a fictional document, even when it is a work of fiction.

He was being pedantic, but not asserting that the bible speaks truth.

> I haven't asked him for details, because we have to work together in a music group and if we fall out the chances are the whole thing stops happening

If you ask respectfully, I see now reason why you won't get a polite reply. Maybe you should avoid the following smug remarks, after age 16 they don't sound as good:

> other than the slightly surreal nature of all these people worrying about interpretations of a fictional document and inspirations from a non-existent entity

Anyway, since we are at it and you seem genuinely interested in details, I will give you my personal details. They may not match what you friend believes, but many Catholics have similar feelings.

As someone who left the Catholic Church because of Bergoglio, I must remind you that the Catholic faith is not just about mercy, forgiveness, kindness. I know many merciful and kind people who are not Catholic. So, when establishing a link between mercy and kindness and the Catholic faith, you have to keep in mind a few points:

- The behavior of a Christian is a consequence of some metaphysical beliefs, of following Christ's teaching and the Holy Bible. It would be an error to consider these consequences as the main trait of a Christian. As the name implies, main trait of a Christian is the belief in Christ.

- It has been reaffirmed many times by the Church that mercy and kindness alone are not enough to save your soul, believing in Jesus Christ is also required.

- Also, the Gospel (Matthew 6,1) advises Christian as follows: “Be careful not to do good deeds in front of other people. Don’t do those deeds to be seen by others. If you do, your Father in heaven will not reward you."

This said, let me come to why I don't like Pope Francis. He's kind, and he's merciful, but he's way too vague about the pillars of the faith.

For instance, in one of the first interviews after he was elected Pope, when asked: "Is there a unique vision of what is the Good?", he replied "Everyone has its own vision of what is Good and what is Bad. And we must encourage him to follows whatever he believes is Good".

This is not Christian. Christianity is about a guy, Jesus Christ, who came to say what is the Good. (John 14,6 "I am the way, the truth and the life")

Pope Francis also repeatedly stated that "there is no Catholic God, there is just one God". Again, this is in contrast with two millennia of teachings, and in particular with the Church dogma that there cannot be salvation outside the Christian faith.

One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed, begins with the following sentence: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

I could show you many other example of Pope Francis's sloppy statements about the pillars of the Christian faith, but I hope you understand a bit better why many Christian, genuinely, do not like him.

> One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed, begins with the following sentence: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

Maybe you should avoid such obviously fallacious reasons to accept something as true, after age 16 that doesn't sound as good.

I was just showing -- because someone asked -- why many statements by the Pope don't fit well in the Catholic system of beliefs. I cited the Athanasian Creed to expose a contradiction with what the Pope says.

Contrary to you, I didn't make any assessment of the general validity of the system.

My argument (what Pope Francis' says conflicts with the sacred texts) is valid whether you believe in Christ or not.

Well, but then you were still missing the point. I would suspect that mathw is well aware of the reasoning that people use to come to those conclusions. What I understand them to be worried about is how anyone in their right mind would use that as a basis for judging somebody, in this case the pope.

Your response is like if someone asked "why would anyone hate black people for their skin color", and you would explain the doctrines of white supremacists. Yeah, of course they have doctrines that say they should hate black people. But who in their right mind would follow those doctrines?

You completely missed the point.

When talking about religion, you can do it in two different ways:

- Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".

- Grownup talk. You try to find an argument which holds both for believers and atheists. That's how a discussion about religion between atheists and believers should be conducted, particularly on a site like HN who values discussion.

Since mathw was wondering why his Christian friend doesn't like Pope Francis, I showed him some contradictions between what the Pope says and does, and the Catholic faith. And I said: "That's the reason why many Catholics don't like the Pope, probably you friend has similar feelings", answering his question.

My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.

> - Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven".

I don't really subscribe to the categories "childish" vs. "grownup". The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion. Saying the former to a believer might not be productive, and in that sense childish--but this is obviously not a forum necessarily for talking to believers, so there is nothing wrong with expressing this perfectly rational assessment of the situation.

> My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question.

Yes, but you are still missing the point (unless I am misinterpreting their question).

The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true" (and maybe by extension: what could one possibly do to to get them away from such epistemologically damaging behaviour)? Explaining what the doctrine is simply is not an answer to the question that's being asked.

> The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion.

No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.

Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.

On the other hand, I think that the right thing to do, is to bring the discussion on a physical (rather than metaphysical) level, so we all can contribute.

> The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true"

Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:

> I haven't asked him for details [...] But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching.

It turns out, as I showed, that there is something more central.

> No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief.

> Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level.

No, that's probably just a confused interpretation on your part.

When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?

Presumably, you won't. And why not? Presumably because you recognize that "Harry Potter is a work of fiction" is not to be taken as a statement of absolute certain fact. You recognize that this is an expression of a tentative albeit pretty likely to be true rational conviction. That is how people use language. Unless you are specifically talking about the philosophical intricacies of epistemology, that is precisely what that kind of sentence means, and there is no problem of the kind that you seem to be seeing.

> Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this:

Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement to be well aware that all those horrible things are also part of christian teachings, and this being more of a slightly sarcastic comment on the fact that Christianity generally gets the reputation of being a "religion of love", despite the overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

> When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"?

If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.

You can play a lot with words and philosophical concepts, and concoct funny situations by stretching semantics.

You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.

And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.

> Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement

I am responsible for what I say, not for what you expect or assume. Even less for what you assume from other people's comments.

> If you stretch the semantics so that Harry Potter is a metaphysical entity, rather than a physical entity in a fantasy world, and so that also "reptile overlords" are metaphysical entities, rather than possible physical entities as they are commonly understood to be, then I would have no objection.

Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?

> You cannot however change the fact that given a metaphysical proposition (there is God) and its negation (there is no God), the belief that either one is true requires an act of faith.

Erm ... that's ... just wrong?

First of all, the claim that holding either of those positions as true requires faith is itself a claim and as such itself requires evidence. While I haven't ever seen anyone holding a belief in a god for any reason other than faith, that does not logically necessitate that faith is required to accept the proposition. Evidence for the existence of the god would very much be an alternative, and I haven't so far seen any argument why evidence would be categorically impossible (unless you happen to be using some definition of "god" for which that happens to be the case). Just because we don't have any evidence as of yet does not mean that therefore evidence is impossible.

But more importantly, you seem to be implying that anyone is making the claim that "there is no god". That's essentially just a strawman. I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists. Not accepting a proposition does not require faith, nor any justification, other than the fact that I am not convinced of the correctness of the claim.

> And feeling all smug and superior for your act of faith (wheter in the direction of atheism or theism) is quite adolescential.

Luckily, no faith on my part.

> Could you please define what you mean by "metaphysical entity"?

This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.

> I, as most people who would label themselves atheists, don't accept the proprosition that a god exists. I also do not accept the proposition that no god exists.

Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.

Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.

And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.

I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.

Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.

> This confirms my impression that you have no idea of the philosophical terms we are using.

Well, it is very unfortunate that you are that fast to judge other people, as that prevents useful communication.

When I am talking to you, I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent your position, which is why I try to avoid assumptions about what you mean by words, and instead ask you to define what specifically it is that you mean if I think it's ambiguous, as is good tradition in philosophical debate.

Also, I don't really see how even the possible fact that I don't know a term that you are using should be a reason to not explain your position in a way that I would then understand.

> Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.

If you prefer that terminology, I don't mind using it that way in our conversation. Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary (as you presumably are well aware, given that you seem to imply that you are somewhat well-versed in at least the basics of philosophy), so what matters is that we understand what the other means, not whether we are using the objectively correct terminology (which is not a thing anyway).

But regardless of what terminology you prefer, I think it would still be useful for you to be aware of how other people use language. Which is why I am telling you that the position that I described is as a matter of fact the position of the majority of those poeple who label themselves as atheists. You might disagree with them about whether that is what they should label themselves, but that still is what they do label themselves as, and that still is their position. At least as far as the common definitions in that community are concerned, atheism vs. theism is orthogonal to agnosticism vs. gnosticism, all four combinations are possible.

> Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.

> And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.

Well, in order to respond to that, I would still need to know what you specifically mean by "metaphysical (entity)".

> I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.

Anything specific that you think I lack understanding of?

> Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.

Please don't waste my time with purely semantic arguments, as you should be well aware that those are vacuous. If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.

> Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary

> If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.

That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.

Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.

How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?

The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...

And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.

And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.

> That is the lamest excuse for losing an argument I have ever heard.

So, you think that one loses an argument when one expresses a correct idea using the wrong word (assuming there is such a thing)?

> Within a given context words have a precise meaning. If we discuss computer science, we accept that, unless otherwise specified, the textbook meanings of the words "byte", "algorithm" or "concurrency" apply.

Great example!

"It takes 4 bytes to transmit a 32 bit integer."

Agree or don't agree?

> How would you feel discussing computer science with someone, just to discover that he made up his own personal definition of algorithm, that does not match the commonly accepted one? A waste of time, you say?

Why would it matter? As long as what he is explaining is understandable and interesting, why would I terminate an interesting discussion just because someone is using non-standard terminology?

> The same applies here, you cannot discuss philosophy, theology and religions without knowing the precise meanings of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism", etc...

Which is precisely why I tried to make sure we agreed on a definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Also, I really think it would be in your own interest to recognize that my definition of atheism is actually a widely accepted definition, or you'll end up unnecessarily just plain misinterpreting what all those people who use that definition are saying.

> And it's ridiculous to say that you argument it's still valid for some re-definition of the basic concepts.

I'm not sure, but the way you word this suggests to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how definitions work, as "definition of a concept" is not really a meaningful phrase (though you might be using it colloquially, which is why I am not sure).

Concepts are abstract ideas. Definitions are assignments of concepts to labels (words/phrases). For exmaple, "water" is commonly defined to mean "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms". Here, "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms" is the concept, "water" is the label, and the definition is the convention to use that label to refer to that concept.

As such, it doesn't really make sense to speak of "redefining a concept". You cannot redefine "a liquid consisting of molecules of each two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms", that's a category error. You only can redefine the labels. So, one could, say, redefine "water" to refer to "piece of furniture consisting of one flat surface at the top with four legs". Under that definition, "a water is a piece of furniture" would be a perfectly sensible and true statement. It's questionable whether the definition would be useful, given that the word "table" exists and is commonly accepted to refer to just that concept, but that doesn't make the statement in any way wrong, at best it makes it awkward.

> And I am not going to teach you, exactly as I am not teaching people who don't know what an algorithm is and still want to discuss advanced topics in computer science.

Why do you think that I don't know what a metaphysical entity is? Someone not being sure of which of a variety of possible definitions is implicitly being assumed by some speaker is not the same as them not having any clue of the topic at hand, is it?

> This is not Christian. Christianity is about a guy, Jesus Christ, who came to say what is the Good. (John 14,6 "I am the way, the truth and the life")

That's the view of Jesus' later followers, not of the man himself.

The John passage isn't especially reliable. [0]

Also, you're forgetting what Matthew and Luke both reported that Jesus said about just what's needed for salvation:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

</blockquote>

(From Luke 10:25-37, emphasis added, footnotes omitted [1].)

[0] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/05/synoptic_christ.... (self-cite) Scroll down to "Problem: The Passage of Time." Tl;dr: From what's known about the author of the Fourth Gospel, his self-promoting account, decades after the facts and at odds with other accounts, simply isn't credible.

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37 (the parable of the Good Samaritan)

> That's the view of Jesus' later followers

You are absolutely right. But the Catholic faith is not about a literal interpretation of the Bible, is about the so-called depositum fidei, i.e. how the Catholic Church holds and transmits the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You may say that all Catholicism is the interpretation given by "Jesus' later followers".

Of course, when discussing Catholicism, I was implicitly using the Catholic Church's interpretation of Jesus's sayings. It would interesting to discuss if what he meant is what the Church now means.

> 27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Sure. My point there was that faith in God is needed for salvation. It's not just mercy and kindness.

I hadn't heard of the Athanasian Creed or know much about Catholicism, that's interesting.

It always seems to be that Pope Francis is much closer to Jesus's example than the Catholic church's tradition. Jesus was in the Bible stories, modest and tolerant and said things like "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." The Catholic church seemed to go a bit away from that with ostentatious wealth, intolerance and the like so I can see why some of followers would be against Francis.

IANAT (... i am not a theologian... but i've been surrounded by them for almost all my life)

> "there is no Catholic God, there is just one God"

I've been told that this is one of the main changes that resulted from Vatican II: there is only one God and it's shared by the whole world population. On the other side, the Catholics pretend to have the "right" way to praise that common God. (but that's not what you were saying)

Francis seems to be in line with the official doctrine. (and from the article this seems to be a constant in his actions)

> One of the most sacred Christian texts, the Athanasian Creed

Never heard of that text. And a quick visit to Wikipedia tells me:

"Today, the Athanasian Creed is rarely used even in the Western Church."

After those two remarks, I don't think your statements are in way representative for a common way to understand the Catholic religion nor for the official Vatican position.

> I've been told that this is one of the main changes that resulted from Vatican II: there is only one God and it's shared by the whole world population. On the other side, the Catholics pretend to have the "right" way to praise that common God. (but that's not what you were saying)

To be honest I think you are misunderstanding Vatican II, but that would open a much longer discussion, so I'll go for a simpler, more direct argument.

A Catholic must believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e. that God is one in three Persons. This is in the latest edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in more than two millennia of doctrine.

In other words: other religions adore different Gods, that don't come in three Persons. According to the Christian doctrine, this is wrong, that is not the true God, and without believing in the Holy Trinity you are not going to Heaven (this is clearly spelled in the Athanasian Creed and in many others documents, has been said many times during the history of the Church, being also confirmed by Vatican II, see also below).

So, it's not a matter of just believing in some vague, universal God. The teaching of the Catholic Church is: either you believe in the Catholic God (one God, three Person, the Son become man, died, resurrected, etc...) or your soul won't be saved.

That's why speaking of only one God may lead to confusion: you may say that the Christian, Islamic and Hindu God are the same, but only one can grant you salvation, so they are not the same!

Other religions have a different concept of God. You may stretch the concept a bit, and consider it as the same God in disguise, however it won't save you soul. That's quite a difference!

(An exception is made for people who didn't get to know the message of Christ in their lifetime, see below.)

> "Today, the Athanasian Creed is rarely used even in the Western Church."

That's right, it is not used in day-to-day celebrations, except once per year.

However it is an authoritative text when it comes to the Catholic doctrine.

Its author, Saint Athanasius, is a Doctor of the Church, i.e. a saint of particular importance when it comes to contributions to theology or doctrine. Actually the main reason he's a Doctor of the Church is because of his Creed.

The main message I was quoting from the Creed, the concept that there cannot be salvation outside the Church, has been repeated over and over during the history of the Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Vatican II has established an exceptions in case of people who never got to know the Gospel during their lifetimes. The main point, that embracing the Christian faith is needed for salvation in case it has been announced to you, is although unmodified.

Fiction or not, religion has very real influence on the world. I'm an atheist, but religion interests me as a force that shapes societies and culture.

As a general rule, the notion of conscience is alien to people of Africa. They don't feel guilty, they only feel regret if they're caught. Now Africa is vast and this is a big oversimplification, especially that large populations of Africa are now Christian, but conscience is still an imported good in Africa and not deeply rooted in its culture. Is it a coincidence Africa suffers from corruption ?

I am amazed to see this comment in 2017. Wtf??

Saying Africans have dark skin is a big oversimplification, you are basically saying that they are morally inferior.

Have you ever been to Africa? Have African relatives? Know African people? I am ashamed by your comment. I invite you to provide some kind of anecdote or proof for your statement. Otherwise don't spread ignorance please.

> Is it a coincidence Africa suffers from corruption ?

So, what's the US' excuse? Europe's? China's? India's?

I hate the "correlation is not causation" trope that's trotted out constantly, but it really applies here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com