Just catching up on this thread, there is something that needs to be pointed out:

Different does not imply ordering. You can have a disordered set, with discrete subsets, wherein the subsets are defined by something other than “less” or “more”. There are very broad classifications of “severity” of sin in the Catholic church, but it’s not like there’s a well ordered ordinal scale of one to ten, with five being five times as bad as one and half as bad as ten.

Even if “different” does imply “ordering”, it doesn’t necessarily include the property of magnitude; given a set {a, b, c}, it may be that the only thing we can say about a, b, and c is that a is “less” than b and b is “less” than c… we may not be able to say anything about how large the differences are between a and b vs b and c.

From a proper canon law standpoint (at least in the Catholic church), excommunication is just a formality. Whenever you sin, you’re in effect excommunicating yourself, and you’re supposed to refrain from all of the sacraments (other than reconciliation) until you’ve repented and done your penance. Judging from the population in the physical church during Saturday confessional vs Sunday mass, I’d hazard a guess that fully 98% of the self-identified Catholics in the U.S. are actually not in a formal state of grace, as far as the church is officially concerned. A formal excommunication is basically just a public writ confirming that someone has excommunicated themselves

So committing murder is not against the nature of Catholicism and therefore does not deserve automatic excommunication.
Which means that the consacrated wafer is more important than a human life.

How does this not imply a ranking of the sins?

I believe– though I’m not 100% sure, the details here can get awfully nice– that it’s either caused by, or related to, the automatic excommunication such acts incur. Basically, once you’ve excommunicated yourself, you’ve put yourself outside the Church’s authority, so it takes a few more steps to bring you back in the fold, so to speak.

Regardless, it is explicitly *not* a judgement of value re: the sins themselves.

Exactly.

“I actually did not attempt any counter-argument. I simply stated that this is territory that has been well traversed by others before us who were better informed and had better arguments than you and I–I am referring to both sides not just one or the other. Please do not put words in my mouth, either.”

I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It didn’t seem like an argument to me but I thought it would be needlessly inflammatory to put the word argument in quotes. I apologize for trying to have the civility you have been demanding, I will not make such a mistake again.

Ignoring the word “counter-argument”, how was my summary of your position any different than your summary of your position? They look identical to me. I was referring to both sides as well in my summary. Anyways, your version is still a cop-out, it is still dismissing my argument instead of actually addressing my point. You say that their arguments are better than mine, but you so far have not shown any problem with my argument that could justify such a conclusion. As I said before, just because other people have had arguments in the past does not make my argument wrong.

You say “irrational” like it’s a bad thing . . . (wasn’t there a similar T-shirt a while ago?)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. You are saying that it is neither good nor bad to be irrational right?

Your counter-argument essentially amounts to “other people have claimed that they are right in the past, therefor I do not have to address your actual argument in any meaningful manner.”

I actually did not attempt any counter-argument. I simply stated that this is territory that has been well traversed by others before us who were better informed and had better arguments than you and I–I am referring to both sides not just one or the other. Please do not put words in my mouth, either.

First, I don’t think they deserve scorn. I never said anything remotely similar to that. In fact I said exactly the opposite. All I said is that it is not rational. I made no further judgment besides that. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Second, I gave a very specific, simple, and straightforward reason why I think it is irrational. Instead of actually discussing that reason, you simply dismiss it with a waive of your hand. Your counter-argument essentially amounts to “other people have claimed that they are right in the past, therefor I do not have to address your actual argument in any meaningful manner.” Even if that is true, it does not in any way contradict my argument.

I am not saying that otherwise rational people cannot hold irrational beliefs. It is called compartmentalization. What I am saying is that such a person cannot be considered truly rational. I gave a specific reason why I think this is the case (religion requires abandoning Occam’s razor). Your experience does not contradict this, since your experience is fully compatible with compartmentalization.

Again, we are reading an article in which a reporter is interpreting Church doctrine and how and where it chooses to absolve sins. Several commenters, who are apparently more familiar with Church doctrine than I am, have attempted to clarify and correct what they saw as a misinterpretation of Catholic teaching as reported by the article. It is a subtle difference that many people have missed.

If you go around and start holding groups accountable for past actions, you may find yourself faced with about 6 billion guilty people. It’s not just the Catholic church that has some disturbing events in its past. There are few, if any cultures or societal groups that have not been guilty of some past heinous crimes.

BlackCat–
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that religion is irrational and illogical, and those who are religious deserve scorn for not thinking more logically. Again, my experience (and I don’t think it is unique in any way) is very different than this.

Sigh. This is kind of like politics–each side is convinced they are right, and muster their unassailable arguments for their side, and if only those blind people on the other side would stop being so stupid–why the world would be a better place.

There are examples over the years of people who are apologists for both sides who have debated this issue and who are far better at it than either you or I, with far better arguments.

Also, since Catholics are dualists, during transubstantiation, the spirit of Jesus enters the wafer, making it a host. No Catholic believes the thing physically becomes the body of Christ, just spiritually. Because of that, it’s not cannibalism. It’s another form of spiritual nourishment like praying and Bible reading. Only this way, you “get more bang for the buck.”

I thought I’d just throw in my two cents, albeit a little late.

Being rational and being skeptical are not the same thing. Being rational means you are following the rules of logic. Being a skeptic means that as well, but it also means you are following the rules of science and evidence consistently (not just on some things). Religion fundamentally requires tossing aside those rules for a large body of events and ideas.

“Where did you see this “requirement?” Who enforces these “special exemptions” in your discussions? What else is needed for an idea to earn “respect?””

I was giving one of my criteria for respecting an idea. As for who enforces the special exemption, it society today that says we must tiptoe around ideas, no matter how bizarre and contrary to the evidence they may be, because they are important to people.

As for other criteria I use, the idea must be logically consistent, must be parsimonious, and must fit with the known evidence. Religion does not fit any of those criteria.

“Perhaps I am mixing up civility with respect. In my world, they are actually closely entwined. It seems as though we may have a difference in defining what we mean by respect. To me, challenging someone else’s ideas does not mean you don’t respect them. We’re parsing words here, I think.”

Perhaps, but a lot of people say that the very act of question or debating a religious belief is inherently disrespectful. That is a problem.

“That may be your definition of irrational. There are others. A more general connotation of the word “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed with reason, affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.””

That is not a “more general” definition, it is just a different one. Another definition, one which is just as valid and does describe all religions, is this:

“not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. ”

Since all religions, at the very least, demand that you toss aside Occam’s razor, a basic logical principle, then by that definition they are illogical.

The article gives the impression that descecrating the host is a more serious offense than murder or genocide. The author may have misinterpreted how the whole forgiveness system is set up and the reasons behind it, as I and other pointed out above, but Phil was basing his understanding on that article and commenting on it.

Also, note what Phil said in the second to last paragraph:

Now, having dealt with the media many times before, I understand how things get distorted in articles like these. Also, I was not raised Catholic, so perhaps I am missing important information here. I would be very interested in getting the opinions and viewpoints of other people in the comments.

He acknowledges that the article may be distorted, he admits to a lack of knowledge of Catholic doctrine, and he asks readers to comment on it.

Regarding your claim that the article did not say that desecrating the Eucharist was worse than murder or genocide, emphasis added:

While priests and bishops can deal with confessions of sins as grave as murder or even genocide, the tribunal is reserved for crimes which are viewed by the Church as even more serious.

Defiling the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, is also considered a sin of extreme gravity and one which is on the increase, the high-ranking members of the tribunal said.

Cardinal Stafford said there had been a rise in incidents in which people would receive Communion and then spit it out or otherwise desecrate it, sometimes in Satanic rituals.

(snipped example of PZ nailing a wafer and tossing it in the trash)

Such sins, which can only be dealt with by the Pope, acting through the tribunal, bring automatic excommunication from the Church. If the Pope decides to grant absolution, the excommunication is lifted.

So, getting back to your original statement against Phil, you were off-base. While the article does not specifically say “Defiling the Eucharist is worse than murder,” it ranks such an act among those that can only be handled by the tribunal, and the article stated earlier that sins handled by the tribunal are more serious than murder or genocide.

Also, to belatedly comment on your response to my earlier comment, in which you said:

@Todd W–
“Your equating it to condemning atheists or scientists for the acts of a few people who happen to be either atheists or scientists is disingenuous. Why? They are not part of, nor acting for, some structured organization. They are not agents, nor policy deciders, for any such organization. If they were, then yes, the same criticisms could be leveled at that organization.”

But they are acting as atheists, right?

Here’s an anecdote for you:

An SS officer watches as an elderly Jew laboriously digs what he knows to be his grave. Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. “God is watching what you are doing,” he said. Without a word, the officer shoots him dead.

And this is precisely the point. What Hitler or Stalin or Mao or the NKVD or the other perpetrators of our recent historical horrors did NOT believe was that God was watching what they were doing. That certainly meets my definition of what an atheist is. This does not mean that all atheists are evil by any stretch, nor am I claiming such.

Again, you are off-base. The point of my comment was that the Catholic Church can, and should, be held responsible for past actions which its agents (Pope, cardinals, priests) condoned and, in some cases, ordered. The same criticism cannot be leveled at “atheists” for the actions of individual atheists, because there is no structured atheist organization on behalf of which they are acting. Your example of the SS officer is not an account of someone acting as an agent for atheism, but rather someone acting as an agent of an oppressive, totalitarian government. Whether the story is true or not, it does not read to me as having anything to do with religion, except on its surface. We do not know, for example, if the officer is rejecting God in totality (atheism) or just rejecting the captive’s idea of God (anti-semitism) or if the officer just simply views the capive as not human (a common occurrence in warfare) and therefore gives no value whatsoever to their comments, regardless of their content.

I never said it was the church’s policy. I don’t really care if it is or not. That’s why I don’t care what the article says.

If you go back and read, my arguments are against those that criticize people for asking any questions about religion and those who believe that religion trumps rational discourse.

Still haven’t read the article–why not?

You seem to be laboring under the impression that it is Church policy to regard genocide as somehow less a sin than desecrating a host. That is not the case; the article (contrary to what Phil and others claim) does not say that. Some commenters have tried to clarify Church belief in this matter, which is NOT the same as defending “church’s policy.”

“That’s your opinion and nothing more.” Well, at least I read the article . . .

That may be your definition of irrational. There are others. A more general connotation of the word “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed with reason,
affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.” There are many “rational” people (not necessarily you) who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost mental clarity. That is not exactly the case.

You seem more interested in argument against strawmen than what I actually said.

Well, after almost 200 comments, you haven’t read the article in question? That’s interesting. As other commenters have pointed out, it actually does appear that Phil and the reporter in the article are guilty of misinterpreting some facts and ideas

First, whatever the article says doesn’t change anything I’ve said. Phil’s post raised a question and yes, some people claimed he misrepresented the article but others have not and tried to defend the church’s policy as being correct.

In this case, that basis was shaky at best.

That’s your opinion and nothing more.

I’ve checked several print and online references, but the Church still teaches (despite whatever ongoing debate may be taking place) that the Eucharist is the BODY of Christ, not a SYMBOL or an IDEA. Personally, it’s not my belief, btw. It is, however, along with things like the papacy, one of the things that “defines” the Catholic church and sets it apart from Protestant sects.

Your statement is incorrect. Perhaps you can divulge your sources from the “Deep Thought Division.” You are making the claim; can you show me where the Church says it’s okay to think of the Eucharist as an idea?

Can someone who believes in astrology be a skeptic? Can someone who believes that praying to a deity will have an effect on the world be a skeptic? If one can be and one can’t, what is the difference between these two cases? Can a homeopath be a skeptic? Can someone who believes in transubstantiation be a skeptic? What is the difference?

I’m not sure if I know the answers to your questions. All I know is that in my life, in my personal experience, I have met deeply religious people and those of perhaps just a more spiritual bent who were also incredibly rational people, some in the biological sciences, even one astronomer. You are unable to understand how that might work. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t.

“How do you define when an idea has “earned” respect?”
Well, for starters the idea should not require special exemptions from the normal rules in order for it to survive.

Where did you see this “requirement?” Who enforces these “special exemptions” in your discussions? What else is needed for an idea to earn “respect?”
Perhaps I am mixing up civility with respect. In my world, they are actually closely entwined. It seems as though we may have a difference in defining what we mean by respect. To me, challenging someone else’s ideas does not mean you don’t respect them. We’re parsing words here, I think.

@scottb–

Remember, irrational means belief without evidence which is also part of “faith”, right?

That may be your definition of irrational. There are others. A more general connotation of the word “irrational” goes along the lines of “not endowed with reason,
affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent.” There are many “rational” people (not necessarily you) who seem to believe that if you are religious, then you have lost mental clarity. That is not exactly the case.

People should be able to question why anyone would value a symbolic ritual above actual human life. Now, Phil may have misinterpreted the article (or not – I haven’t read it) but it’s still a legitimate question.

Well, after almost 200 comments, you haven’t read the article in question? That’s interesting. As other commenters have pointed out, it actually does appear that Phil and the reporter in the article are guilty of misinterpreting some facts and ideas; Phil has jumped the gun like this on several occasions before (see a recent post from a parent’s blog regarding a religious elementary school).

It’s a legitimate question if there is some sound basis for the question. In this case, that basis was shaky at best. If you just want to ask wild questions, that’s different.

I recall several discussions and readings about the controversy among theologians about whether it actually MEANT it was really the body. There was vehement debate. As far as I know, that debate continues.

If YOU choose to believe it’s the body, that’s YOUR business. But, my statement that it represents the IDEA of the body of Christ is also correct until somebody shows me where the guys in the Deep Thought Division of the Catholic church have come to an agreement on what it really is/means. And even then, since it’s something that I (and many others) do not personally believe, it falls into the realm of idea anyway, sort of like the Holy Ramen and Sacred Cows and other shibboleths of organized religions.

This whole debate was, in fact, one of the many factors that caused my shift in feeling and beliefs as a church member and I ultimately left because it seemed to me that Holy Church Teaching was, more or less, a Make It Up as You Go Along to Control the Masses kind of thing and that the few absolutes (love thy neighbor, etc.) were not exclusive to the church — nor, in fact, to ANY religion. The moral absolutes were something that I could embrace without the trappings of hierarchy or, for that matter, the belief in a kindly tripartite guy floating around up there in the clouds, waiting for me to sin so he could take some action (if he felt like it). That part seemed quite fairy tale-ish and I left it behind.

I concur with others that respect for you as a person is important, and that I can respect your right to believe in whatever you like. But, setting aside sacred protected territory for the ideas you profess to believe in (even when they turn out to be ideas that are under debate by theologians) is not even remotely fair. It is, as others have pointed out, asking for preferred treatment that is unwarranted.

GKopy: , this IS Phil’s blog, and if you read about Phil up at the top there, you may also know that Phil is a Skeptic and committed to the cause of free thought and skeptical thinking. These things often go hand in hand with science. Phil gets to write about whatever he wishes, and I happen to think he does it pretty well and researches what he writes about. If that’s not to your liking or preference, you can always skip over the posts that put your knickers in a knot and move on to the next blog for that day. It’s called “choice” and you are free to exercise it.

“I come here for the science, not Phil’s opinions on theology.”

Then why are you still on this thread? You should know that these Discovery blogs are personal blogs where anything can get posted. If you don’t like “non-science” posts, ignore them.

“Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religions with a very, very large brush.”

He was responding to an article – he didn’t make this stuff up out of the blue. As I said before, he may have misinterpreted something in the article but are you saying he can’t comment on it because it deals with religion? It seems to me that when Phil posts articles on religion it’s usually dealing with the disconnect between religious belief and reality. It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask if the church holds that violating a symbol is worse than violating human life.

“In that respect, he’s not a very smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling names in the parking lot.”

Pot, meet kettle.

Who is limiting your speech in a public place? Freedom of speech does not mean people have to agree with you. Don’t confuse disagreement with your right to speak.

@All who use the word “cracker”

You know that term was selected to be disrespectful. It’s typical Phil.

@Eheitz

Thank you for putting things in perspective. There are so many “experts” in theology out there whose only religious education is the last news article. I come here for the science, not Phil’s opinions on theology. Phil the Scientist is very thorough when it comes to physics, but always limits his inquiries on theology and paints all religions with a very, very large brush.

Phil got what he wanted: traffic on his blog. And I’m sure Discovery Magazine is quite pleased as well with the traffic and the childish jabs at religion.

In that respect, he’s not a very smart guy at all — just the typical juvenile bully calling names in the parking lot.

I never said “all religious ideas are irrational”. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

However, as an example, belief in angels, ghosts, and demons is irrational. Remember, irrational means belief without evidence which is also part of “faith”, right?

I don’t have any problem with people that want to believe in a supernatural entity until they start making claims that their belief affects reality. At that point, I say “prove it”. If you have no proof, saying “I take it on faith” is a huge cop-out and even worse, leads us down a road where everything is “sacred” just because someone says it is. Do you eat beef? If so, you’re commiting a horribly “disrespectful” act against Hindus. Would you take a blood transfusion? I hope you’re not a Jehova’s Witness.

Which brings us back to the original point. If people want to believe in transubstantiation, fine, but don’t bring it into the public domain and start demanding unquestioning “respect”. People should be able to question why anyone would value a symbolic ritual above actual human life. Now, Phil may have misinterpreted the article (or not – I haven’t read it) but it’s still a legitimate question.

If you are claiming that the Catholic Church doesn’t do that then fine, but the people who come here and insult everyone for even questioning religion are the ones who need a reality check.

How do you successfully compartmentalize these two sides of your personality?
Doesn’t the the cognitive dissonance give you migraines?

Late reply by a different person, but I did agree with what M was saying. I’ve grown up in a Christian family (Salvation Army to be specific) and have never really questioned the fact that God is real. I am personally convinced that He exists, though I know that from a non-Christian’s viewpoint it is entirely unproveable. On the other hand I am strongly interested in science, and my two obsessions when I was little were Space and Dinosaurs – so of course I read plenty about the scientific beginning of the Universe and the world and the evolution of life. So I knew the story of evolution, and the story of Creation, and I never thought of either solely as the “real” one. They both exist, and though they don’t really fit together, it doesn’t bother me. My faith is the same regardless.

My stance on the eternal evolution/creation debate is “evolution happened, but God did it”. God’s hand in creating the world is (to me) unquestionable; however, I’m sure the vast majority of the scientists in the world haven’t misinterpreted the physical indications that the world is billions of years old and we all evolved from little swimmy things in the ocean. THEREFORE either God guided the formation of the world over those billions of years OR he made it in seven days but made it *look* much older – and really, why would He want to deliberately trick us?

Ultimately, I think the Christians pushing ‘Intelligent Design’ are putting their effort into completely the wrong thing anyway. People won’t be saved just because they’re taught that the world was created by some nonspecific Creator (because that’s what they’re having to push it through as).