Vatican reaches out to atheists – but not you, Richard Dawkins

[Christa]

The Vatican is planning a new initiative to reach out to atheists and agnostics in an attempt to improve the church's relationship with non-believers. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered officials to create a new foundation where atheists will be encouraged to meet and debate with some of the Catholic Church's top theologians.

The Vatican hopes to stage a series of debates in Paris next year. But militant non-believers hoping for a chance to set senior church figures straight about the existence of God are set to be disappointed: the church has warned that atheists with high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-reaches-out-to-atheists-ndash-but-not-you-richard-dawkins-1987518.html

[Extend a Hand]

1. is God not up to debating the A team??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

5. Even the Vatican recoils from folk who "read religious texts like fundamentalists"

Dawkins' schtick is to promote the view of the US fundamentalists, that evolutionary theory is incompatible with religion

[ZombieHorde]

7. How would a fundamentalist read the Holy Bible? nt

[struggle4progress]

13. Roughly speaking: as Richard Dawkins does

[laconicsax]

14. Fundamentalists read the Bible as fiction?

The things I learn here in R/T...

[ZombieHorde]

19. You seem to be claiming Fundamentalists are atheists, but I doubt you feel that way.

Perhaps you could use another strategy to explain how Fundamentalists read the Holy Bible.

[struggle4progress]

20. There is first the manner of the reading, and then the second of reaction to the reading

Both Dawkins and the Fundamentalist read in the exactly same manner but react differently: the one reads the text and rejects it all as a fairy tale, the other reads it the same way and decides it necessary to set aside any and all qualms

Other, more interesting and more illuminating, reading styles are possible. Since I have been posting examples for some years now, it is perhaps pointless for me to pretend I believe you when you suddenly appear to prick up your ears in surprise at hearing such a thing

[darkstar3]

24. And when you can explain how

this more interesting and illuminating way of reading the Bible provides any more truth than the same kind of reading of the Odyssey, perhaps some people will show interest in your particular interpretation.

When you can explain the exact process of how you arrived at the conclusion that certain parts of the Bible are metaphorical, and certain parts are not, perhaps you will find an audience for your ramblings.

[ZombieHorde]

27. You are still not telling me how they read the Holly Bible.

I think Fundamentalists read the Holy Bible looking for justification for their conservative politics, just like liberal Christian read the Holy Bible looking for justification for their liberal politics. The parts which match the individual's politics are embraced, and the parts which do not match the individual's politics are either ignored, considered metaphor, dismissed as poorly translated, etc.

I think Dawkins reads the Holy Bible as if many people consider it to be non-fiction, and then realizes the book contains many bizarre claims.

[struggle4progress]

29. Of course, there is a certain amount of truth in your first paragraph.

But the Fundamentalist purports to read the Bible literally, then extracts from that reading a series of claims to which the Fundamentalist says we must give intellectual assent. The only difference between this and Dawkins' reading, is that Dawkins extracts a series of claims to which Dawkins says we must not give intellectual assent. This is immediately clear from the moment both lay hands on the first chapter of Genesis: the one says, Well, we must believe what is here is literally true, and so we must accept it entirely; the other says Well, we cannot possibly believe what is here is literally true, and so we must reject it entirely. Both assume that the text is intended to be read literally as an account of origins. It is a lazy and slapdash reading

But there are readings in various older traditions that assume the text is not intended to be anything like a literal description of history or scientific fact. Judaism has a long history of rabbinical conversational "disputes" about the interpretation of the texts: one is, of course, free to disregard that history if one is uninterested in the texts, but it is that constant argument that preserved the texts as part of a living culture, and it is certainly at least a testimony to the literary quality of the texts that such conversation has persisted for several millennia. Whoever first assembled Genesis, stuck together two completely different creation yarns: this cannot have been a mere oversight; whoever did so must have done so knowingly; it leaves the question, Why? What was the intent? One can read the texts as cultural history, in light of current knowledge: how, for example, did a portion of the Gilgamesh saga land in the Hebrew scriptures, and what are differences between the theological views of the Babylonian saga and the theological views of the people who saved part of that saga as the tale of Noah, long after Babylon had fallen into ruin? All of the methods of modern philology can be applied to the texts: one then seems to uncover layers of stories that reflect ancient disputes. If one does not assume that the text is supposed to be an authoritative divine word, but reflects instead a complicated history of people groping slowly towards a theology, one can glimpse all manner of primitive and very ancient ideas that still seem to lie in our psyches just below the civilized paint job that we humans gave ourselves rather recently. Simple literal readings are often completely uninformative

[ZombieHorde]

32. Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist, and most of the evidence presented against evolution

is the Book of Genesis. Dawkins did not invent the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the interpretation went to him and he has spoken out against it.

I imagine most vocal atheists were raised with an interpretation of the Holy Bible which claims many of the bizarre parts are to be considered literal. I know I was. We see the effects of these interpretations in our society, such as Intelligent Design being taught in class rooms, so we attack the evidence which was presented to us. This is why Christianity is the religion atheists in the US usually attack. If Buddhists were suggesting policy based off of a belief in literal reincarnation, then many of us would attack literal reincarnation and possibly Buddhism in general.

I don't have the answers to the questions presented in the final paragraph of your post, but simple readings are the readings many of us are usually presented with by believers.

[skepticscott]

34. It's you who is guilty of a slapdash and sloppy interpretation

of Dawkins' reading of Genesis. As pointed out in another post, he did not invent the notion that it should be interpreted literally, he merely shows that that interpretation goes against every scrap of evidence that exists, and is patently ridiculous. He has not attacked it because he is convinced that it is the only interpretation possible, but because so many other people think that it is, and because those people are the driving force behind so much idiotic public policy. And what he is rejecting entirely is the factual basis of Genesis, not its cultural basis. Do you really, honestly think that Dawkins is unaware of the mythological interpretation of Genesis? Of course he is.

It's your thinking that is ridiculously beyond the pale. Again.

[trotsky]

35. "the Fundamentalist purports to read the Bible literally"

And so do you. But in the same way, neither you nor the fundamentalist takes ALL of the bible literally. You pick the parts you want to be literal, and so do they.

[rug]

28. Who's Mr.T, Hitchens or Dawkins?

[Submariner]

2. What's to debate?

The Vatican lives in a world of make believe idolizing imaginary sky people, and atheists don't. End of discussion.

[CrispyQ]

3. "...to improve the church's relationship with non-believers."

Relationship? What a strange word to use. I have no relationship with the Church & I don't want one! Now, if they want to improve their image, they could start by holding pedophile priests, & those that looked the other way, accountable - starting at the very top.

Back to the original topic:

snip...

"We, as believers, must have at heart even those people who consider themselves agnostics or atheists," he (the Pope) said. "When we speak of a New Evangelization, these people are perhaps taken aback. They do not want to see themselves as an object of mission or to give up their freedom of thought and will. Yet the question of God remains present even for them, even if they cannot believe in the concrete nature of his concern for us."

~emphasis added

No, it doesn't. Quit making assumptions about atheists based on the context of your life & your beliefs!

[charlie]

4. Only "noble" atheists

That'll send an electric thrill through a certain faction. If Robert Wright isn't recognized with an invitation, he'll become more of a hangdog mope than he usually is.

[struggle4progress]

8. Early Christian understandings of "faith" may not resemble some conventional pieties

in common circulation later:

... Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead ... Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that ... James 2

A genuine "love your neighbor as yourself" atheist might be completely unimpressed by "I saw you were hungry and naked, so I prayed for you" -- not simply as an intellectual matter but because because the immediate practical need of the hungry and naked is not for fine words said to them, or pleaded on their behalf to some deity in heaven. The need is not simply for the abstract realization "this person needs actual food and clothing today," nor is the need for a mere hope "we hope this person is fed and clothed today." The hungry and naked will not see much difference between someone who says "Too bad for you" and someone who merely passes by with a cheery "Be happy! I'm praying for you!" -- or between someone who actually provides food and clothing (while thinking "I have no real use for religion") and someone who actually provides food and clothing (while praying fervently for the sufferer to come into better days) -- but will surely notice a difference between between being hungry/naked or fed/clothed, and so will notice a difference between real action and fine words without action

In this sense, there can be a genuinely "noble" atheism that regards "gods" as an empty vacuity but is actually and practically concerned with suffering in the world-as-it-is-here-and-now

[charlie]

10. That's swell

But the alternate was provided -- ironic, sarcastic, "polemical" atheism. The Vatican thinks Dawkins and company are just smartasses.

[struggle4progress]

15. Since Dawkins compares religious education to child abuse,

claims that anyone with religious ideas is enabling fanatics, attributes to religious people beliefs akin to a belief in fairies, regularly portrays evolutionary theory as being in conflict with religion &c&c, the Vatican may have some difficulty imagining that Dawkins would contribute much to a search “.. not .. for union but harmony, points of commonality on subjects concerning ethics, virtue, peace, nature”

Dawkins has marked out his territory clearly and has no trouble getting his view before the public

[darkstar3]

17. And Dawkins makes his case well.

So well, in fact, that it has become incredibly difficult for anyone to provide an effective answer to his rhetoric. All I ever see from his detractors are ad homs, sometimes in disguise, sometimes not.

[charlie]

23. Yes, what of it?

The Vatican gets to invite who they want, I wasn't complaining.

[Cleobulus]

25. Are you saying filling kids with fear of hell-fire and damnation isn't abusive?

Tell me you are joking.

[darkstar3]

18. I take issue with your final sentence here,

for two reasons. First, you act as though the type of "noble" atheism you define here either does not exist or is difficult to find. That would be the old hat "no atheist charity" argument, which is untrue. Second, I take issue with your usage of the word "noble". Is it more "noble" to help the suffering through charity, or to help in the fight to end suffering through science? Does it even seem correct that the only thing one can do to BE noble is to concern oneself with the current suffering in the world?

[struggle4progress]

21. You either have a serious reading comprehension problem or else

simply enjoy misrepresenting what others say. The first might be treated by better education; the typical remedy for the second might simply be better manners, but in extreme cases might require professional psychiatric help

Have a lovely day! :hi:

[darkstar3]

22. You have serious issues with answering your critics.

Your ad hom does nothing to reinforce what you're trying to say. Have a lovely day, my foot. If you meant that you wouldn't have preceded it with your standard inflated way of saying "fuck off".

[ZombieHorde]

6. Maybe the Church can stop protecting child rapists and stop spending money on

oppressing minorities.

If they did these things I would start to feel better about them.

Ending their anti-condom propaganda would help as well.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. I see a love-bomb coming

They'll make those heathen atheists feel so good about themselves that they'll just give up the fantasy of atheism and rejoin the Catholic Church, Ltd. Yea, religion!

[onager]

11. If the Church seeks a relationship with this atheist, I'm getting a Restraining Order.

n/t

[Iggo]

12. Fuckin A right.

I don't want another realtionship with them. Our last relationship ended poorly.

[struggle4progress]

16. I doubt anyone will grab you by the ears and drag you to any of these events

But if such a thing happens, do let us here know so that we can stand up for your right not to attend

[onager]

30. Google "humor"

n/t

[struggle4progress]

31. Frankly, I amused myself with the image of you being dragged off by the ears

But I suppose that merely indicates the very personal nature of humor, since you seem not to have found the image as amusing as I did

[DeSwiss]

26. Of course Richard and Christopher....

...aren't invited because they want the pope arrested. As do I. So I guess I can quit looking for my invitation to show up in the mail.

- This is bullshit. It's like debating the veracity of whether Tinkerbell exists......

[TZ]

33. Reaches out in the hopes of gaining converts no doubt.

I'm not the only atheist that wants nothing to do with them.