Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Pope Goes Bonkers?

by afew Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:14:57 AM EST

Of course, this may not look like a big deal. Who cares about nutty traditionalists and Latin mass?

Pope to lift excommunications of four 'Lefebvre' bishops - The Irish Times - Fri, Jan 23, 2009

IN WHAT appears to be an attempt to heal a 20-year schism in the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI is about to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist “Lefebvre” bishops, according to Italian media reports yesterday.

Whilst the Holy See would neither confirm nor deny the reports, many Vatican commentators believe the pope has already signed the pontifical decree cancelling the 1988 excommunications of four bishops from the Society of Saint Pius X, the society founded in 1970 by the controversial, traditionalist French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who died in 1991.

Having served as a Vatican diplomat and then as superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers, Archbishop Lefebvre made international headlines in the 1970s and 1980s through his virulent opposition to many of the changes embodied in the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council.

In particular, he and his followers rejected the introduction of Mass in the local language, opting instead to use the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass.

But calling Lefebvre and his devoted followers "traditionalists" is pretty easy-going. Right-wing hardline fundamentalists would be more like it.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s opposition to change concerned much more than fundamental liturgical questions, however. Essentially, he argued that Pope John Paul II had made too many concessions to Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others in his pursuit of improved ecumenical and inter-religious relations.

More yet:

Pope to cancel excommunication of rebel bishops - Telegraph

Pope Benedict has signalled he wishes to heal the rift. But he will face a difficult decision over reinstating the British bishop, Richard Williamson, 68, after his appearance on Sweden's SVT television channel this week.

"I believe there were no gas chambers ... I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers," he said.

"There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!"

Yes, this is one of the schismatic bishops the Pope wants to heal rifts with.

So let's see. How much longer before Ratzinger turns a significant portion of Catholic (never mind the rest of us) opinion against his ultra-rightist tendencies? Or is the conservative tide set to roll on?


Display:


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:22:42 AM EST
Pope Bonkers: Official

Is that better?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:25:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about: Pope Bonkers: Pope

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pope Outpopes Pope
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Psycho-Pope pops papal sanity hopes
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example of Mass hysteria...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You might make a more elevated comment.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 05:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ok

How much more bonkers can Pope get

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 05:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pope eyes mistake: sent olive branch, frog remains nuts.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bonking banner Pope unbans bonkers bishops?

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Heretic! The pope never bonks.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 10:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just another 'hail mary' pass by the Pope. One might say the Church has seen its 'last rights.'

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ET. is. damned.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're going to need some transubstantiation for that claim.
by Sassafras on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
genuflecting at the return of Sassafras

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaďs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:46:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want, I'll show you the pyx.

(Good to see you, Sassafras!)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There have been quite a few originals in this thread, I must confess.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 06:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Win.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 11:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have an aunt involved with the "traditionalists" , and they're crazy, crazy people. Full-on Jewish Conspiracy stuff, support for the return of the French royalty, world government portending the anti-christ. Woo-woo-woo.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:40:31 AM EST
want the return of French royalty? Wild!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you see, the Kings were appointed by God, so it's the best form of government.

I'm not sure if they want it, or whether the French royalists are associated with the traditionalists and so the idea receives sympathetic coverage in the newsletter.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect it's because the movement is above all French-based, and they are part of the old French national right, monarchist, Catholique et Français toujours.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They are very nasty, crazy ultra-rightwingers. Weirdo theorists and hardline authoritarians.

The French lot, btw, are in favour of the return of Brian Boru.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That would be something of an achievement.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't the Resurrection part of the mythology?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:40:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be an interesting psycho-sociological exercise to try and understand what attracts people to extreme sects like this.  Given their prominence in the USA this is not a phenomenon to be taken lightly.

I am intrigued by the weird connections - authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, pro-Zionism,  royalism, ritualism, sexual repression, holocaust denial, climate change denial, creationism, homophobia, conspiracy theories, millenarianism, extreme dualities of good and evil...

There is a whole psychology here which progressives need to understand if they wish to counter it.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I suggested elsewhere in the thread, this is a movement that takes its place in a long tradition of French ultra-Catholicism that was very much at home under Marshal Pétain. I'd hesitate to call it a sect. It doesn't proselytise much, for example.

However, other Catholics who didn't join the schismatics are tempted by a conservative drift. Ratzinger is of course giving a sign that it's perfectly in order to drift that way some more.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Karen Armstrong is a starting point.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No problem: tell me if you find a decent critique of it anywhere. The internet is polluted by red-blooded Islam haters shouting that she isn't mean enough to Mohammed and so on.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking at it from the angle of the authoritarian personality, an online book that has been discussed a lot on ET is Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 10:02:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another one for the project list....<sigh>

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 10:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A part of it is probably that people who subscribe to defective pictures of the world are less able [.pdf] (via) to recognise when others are off base.

That would explain in no small part why people who hold weird ideas are attracted to other people who hold weird ideas, irrespective of their consistency: Neither is capable of telling that the other is spouting horse manure, and both are opposed by the same kinds of people; that is, pretty much everybody who isn't crazy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - especially when nobody else wants to be...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 02:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly a common thread is that they are opposed to the "modernist" scientific world and empirical methods in general, but I think there may also be emotional and other neural and quasi logical links to the things they oppose...

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may simply be because they start out holding one nonsense notion, which is sufficiently divorced from reality to impair their ability to evaluate the merits of claims in general. If such an individual meets with an organisation that - ah - does not stress critical thinking skills, shall we say, it's entirely possible that this person will adopt its dogma more or less wholesale. Certainly, crank magnetism appears even in more loosely associated groups (see, e.g. the cross-pollination between YEC'ers and germ theory "skeptics"), so there's no reason it shouldn't happen in a structured environment in which adoption of the entire dogma is actively encouraged.

And weird ideas don't come and go - they accumulate: Having no basis for sifting the nonsense from the sense, dismissing any part of the dogma will run the risk of alienating part of the group. And since consistency isn't terribly important to this kind of mindset, it's easier to simply insist on all the dogma that the group has happened to pick up along the decades.

That's my amateur psychology anyway...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not quite that simple, unfortunately. Logic and critical thinking does not, by itself, ensure convergence of beliefs. You can in fact have two entirely logical and rational people who, when faced with the same evidence, and after incorporating this same evidence with all due logical and critical diligence, will be further from agreeing than they were before.

Here's an example: person B goes on TV to claim that a certain dictator H has nukes. Viewers U, V initially have no opinion on the matter, but U considers B a lying windbag who can't be trusted, while V considers him an honourable person deserving much respect.

After watching the broadcast, U believes (as he did before) that B has deliberately lied, so the opposite of his claim must be more likely, ie H probably has no nukes. However, V respects B (as he did before) and now believes that H probably has nukes.

Logic on its own is not good enough for convergence of beliefs. You have to take into account the full set of prior beliefs of a person, and this is why it's a waste of time to talk seriously to religious people or conspiracy nutters to question their delusions, for example.

Scientists tend to believe that logic and critical thinking alone brings convergence, but that is only so because they all have highly compatible prior beliefs on everything that matters in their work, obtained from highly similar educational backgrounds.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 07:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But neither of those is an example of rational thinking.

I didn't believe that H had nukes because a workable WMD program is almost crippingly expensive, even for a functional economy, and after GW I Country I certainly didn't have a functional economy.

Also, B clearly was a lying windbag too. But that was a suggestive data point, not proof.

Scientists believe critical thinking brings convergence because beliefs are independently checked and verified and supported by abstract reasoning. Every so often this goes horribly wrong, but the system works - within its limits - at least as well as any other kind of intellectual attempt to understand the world.

Religious people and paranoid exploding-earth nutters are swayed almost entirely by their emotions and don't do logic at all. 'I feel it' isn't much of an explanation for anything, which is why you can't argue with it rationally. Meanwhile the paranoid nutters enjoy drama and fear for the sake of it.

The broad split is between people who pay attention to facts outside themselves and people who only pay attention to their feelings. The Pope seems to be one of the latter - he'd rather defend an irrational faith with irrational acts than engage with historical reality.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rational thinking is a method of processing facts and assumptions. It can be applied to as little or as many facts as one chooses, and as little or as many assumptions as one chooses. So my examples are certainly examples of rational thinking, albeit with a highly reduced set of assumptions and facts chosen to illustrate the point.

Also, B clearly was a lying windbag too. But that was a suggestive data point, not proof.
It most certainly was a proof:
Assumption: B lies.
Fact: B claims H has nukes
Conclusion: B's claim is not true

You cannot claim that the above isn't rational just because you disagree with the limited scope of the universe of discourse in that example. In your own example, the fundamental possibility of divergence remains:

I didn't believe that H had nukes because a workable WMD program is almost crippingly expensive, even for a functional economy, and after GW I Country I certainly didn't have a functional economy.
A rational person can still disagree with you by disagreeing with some of your unstated underlying assumptions, such as e.g. that H had actually had them built fully rather than only partially say, or that he had them smuggled in, or that a workable program is much less expensive than you believe etc.

Unless you happen to be a WMD scientist, all of your assumptions about H and his country were derived from interpreting media reports available to you, together with the meta-assumption that these reports were not all outright lies and misinformation. A conspiracy theorist could read the same media as you, but because he assumes that they are outright lies, he will end up with a rather different interpretation, yet both of you would be exposed to the exact same facts in writng and both of you would be rational, you only differ in a highly influential assumption.

Religious people and paranoid exploding-earth nutters are swayed almost entirely by their emotions and don't do logic at all. 'I feel it' isn't much of an explanation for anything, which is why you can't argue with it rationally. Meanwhile the paranoid nutters enjoy drama and fear for the sake of it.
I'm not saying that all religious people and conspiracy people *are* behaving rationally, I'm saying that even if they were, it would be insufficient to overcome the boundaries of their world view. Thus it is meaningless to blame their differing views on a failure to think rationally or to process facts.

Two people who are entirely rational but whose prior assumptions differ can both interpret common facts logically, and end up disagreeing even more afterwards.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 10:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are some physical constraints on human behaviour. You don't have to be an expert in order to give a ballpark guesstimate. E.g.: The only countries with functioning WMD programmes are countries with a GDP more than three times that of the country in question - and if you count only the ones that didn't get help from the USA or one of its client states, call it a factor of 30 to 300 instead, depending a little on your definition of "client state."

The conspiracy theorist is deficient in critical thinking skills if he assumes that all media reports are outright lies. It violates Occam's Razor, which is a pretty basic tool for critical thinking. And lying about everything is plain stupid. You only lie about the important things, because the more you have to lie, the easier it is to slip up and build in an inconsistency that's a little too glaring.

Reasonable people arguing in good faith can, and frequently do, reach widely divergent conclusions. But there are some constraints on what kind of conclusions they can reach. And most cults like the one under discussion are clearly on the "divorced from reality" side of that line.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 03:33:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My answer here is essentially the same as in my other comment, so I'll keep it short. You claim that the USA didn't help this country, say, but you have only the USA's word for this, which is unreliable to some.

Occam's Razor here reduces to a prior belief that the USA generally tells the truth, versus no such belief. Think of an American, a European, a Russian, and a Chinese.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 05:01:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But at some point the ad hoc assumptions get a shade too convoluted to pass the smell test.

Sure, you can assume that the US government lied about not helping, but is now telling the truth about the existence of the nukes. But this seems to be a contradiction: The US government is full of shit when it makes a self-serving statement about not helping nasty people get nukes. But it's a model of honesty when it makes a self-serving statement about nasty people having nukes.

You could then elaborate the assumption by noting the change in management in the US inbetween those statements. But this can be challenged by noting that if this new, more truthful management actually was serious about the whole truth thing, they could just release the documentation proving that the previous management had aided the nasty people. Then the previous management would have egg on its face and the case would be open-and-shut.

Of course, it's possible to elaborate the ad hoc assumption further with another ad hoc modification. But there is a limit to how many ad hoc assumptions you're permitted to stack on top of each other before you've left the realm of logic and reason and entered the realm of narratives. It's not a hard limit by any means, but it is there somewhere, and conspiracy theorists usually sail right past it within the first two or three paragraphs...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:24:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
martingale:
It most certainly was a proof:
Assumption: B lies.
Fact: B claims H has nukes
Conclusion: B's claim is not true

Uh, no. This only follows logically if B lies all the time. In 2003 that was looking likely, but not certain, and certainly not proof of anything.

It turned out in retrospect that he lied maybe 95% of the time. But that fact wasn't available in 2003.

A rational person can still disagree with you by disagreeing with some of your unstated underlying assumptions, such as e.g. that H had actually had them built fully rather than only partially say, or that he had them smuggled in, or that a workable program is much less expensive than you believe etc.

But there was no absolutely evidence to support any of those claims.

You're sounding like the people who said that Saddam really did have WMDs but... they were smuggled to Syria, which is why they were never found.

There's a vast uncrossable gulf between that kind of narrative logic, in which anything goes as long as it sounds vaguely plausible, and evidence-based argument, which requires a decent data set to argue implications from.

Unless you happen to be a WMD scientist, all of your assumptions about H and his country were derived from interpreting media reports available to you, together with the meta-assumption that these reports were not all outright lies and misinformation.

That and reading books and comments by the UN weapons inspectors, who might reasonably be expected to have a more accurate picture than the media.

In fact the media were spectacularly wrong and generally supportive of the party line, so there was no meta-assumption needed.

I assumed the primary sources - which were freely available to anyone - were more accurate than the media reporting.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 07:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, no. This only follows logically if B lies all the time.
There's no "all the time" in the example, only person U who assumes that B lies on TV. Your ojbection has merit of course, but only if you extend the scope of the original example hugely.

It turned out in retrospect that he lied maybe 95% of the time. But that fact wasn't available in 2003.
Actually, it was pretty obvious at the time that he lied, which is why the whole thing was such a hard sell. B's statements were repeatedly contradicted by the IAEA investigators on the ground in UN reports, his claims were not confirmed by any major powers (France, Russia, China) except for the US, his dossier was immediately shown to be lifted (and edited) from internet sources, his claims agreed with Powell's UN lies, which were also contradicted by the IAEA at the time, and of course most of his claims were contradicted by the Iraqi government at the time.

The only way anybody at the time could claim that it wasn't obvious that the UK government was lying was by weighting the USUK statements 99%, and all other statements 1%, say. That's actually quite reasonable for British people in general to do, on the grounds that they'd have to become paranoid otherwise, but non-anglophones had no such conflict of interest.

Which nicely again illustrates my point about unstated assumptions leading to divergence. Anybody who placed even 50% weight on USUK statements and 50% weight on statements from other sources essentially had to consider B a liar, simply due to the large number of contradicting claims of fact by other independent sources.

There's a vast uncrossable gulf between that kind of narrative logic, in which anything goes as long as it sounds vaguely plausible, and evidence-based argument, which requires a decent data set to argue implications from.
You seem to think that evidence-based argument (as opposed to calling something narrative logic?) requires a specific set of common initial assumptions (such as the famous I think therefore I am, which alone is obviously insufficient). Please list them.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 11:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But obviously, person B either is a lying windbag or he isn't. OK, "windbag" may be in the eye of the beholder, but whether he has a history of lying or not is a matter of public record. So one of the two viewers suffers from either a) ignorance of the public record, or b) a lack of ability to discriminate between lying windbags and honest brokers in the debate.

It's true that it is possible to start out from different assumptions and, using perfectly valid logical syntax, reach widely diverging conclusions. But for that to qualify as reasonable, the assumptions have to be not too divorced from reality.

The key distinction here is whether this divorce from reality is caused by lack of information or by lack of critical thinking skills. The former is a lot easier to cure than the latter.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 03:24:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but whether he has a history of lying or not is a matter of public record.
But what if the public record is not considered reliable, and is often contradictory on the topic? That is par for the course with conspiracists, which is why pointing to the facts on public record has no power to change their minds.

It's true that it is possible to start out from different assumptions and, using perfectly valid logical syntax, reach widely diverging conclusions. But for that to qualify as reasonable, the assumptions have to be not too divorced from reality.
Reality is what one can touch and see (etc.) One does not touch or see the facts reported in the public record, one only touches or sees what is _written_ (etc) in the public record, and what is written in reports referring to the public record (etc).

There is no divorce from reality as such in any case. A (hypothetically rational) conspiracist accepts what is written in the public record, thus accepting reality (so far, just like you or I), but does not infer (unlike you or I) that the facts referred in the public record are generally true events.

This is not out of lack of logic (again take a hypothetical rational conspiracist) but out of a working assumption that the record is unreliable or deliberately misinformation. Nothing in the public record contradicts the working assumption (how could it?), therefore this assumption is not revised.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 04:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It still falls to Occam's Razor. While not a part of formal logic per se, it certainly is a part of what I'd consider a rational and reasonable mindset.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 04:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The question I find intriguing is not the logicality or otherwise of a set of beliefs, but their functionality.  Why is it in someones interests to believe (say) that science is all a conspiracy.  I can see why climate change deniers don't want to have to give up their SUVs, but belief systems are ,ore difficult to explain on those terms.

The importance of wanting to beling to a tightly knit group - ideally contra-defined to a hostile world will obviously appeal to a paranoid mindset, but it doesn't explian the content of those beliefs that the group hold dear.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 05:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry other belief systems

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 05:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
*That* is a good question. I doubt there are universal answers, and you've already said that much anyway.

For the case of denying science, I think that people sometimes get carried away. Science gives absolute answers, but only on a highly restricted set of questions. There is a discipline in not answering questions whose answer is unknown, and by extension, not asking questions whose answer is expected to be unobtainable. Many people cannot or won't accept this discipline, and prefer to complete their knowledge on the "big" questions with beliefs rather than leave some questions unanswered.

Which leaves a fascinating ancillary problem: where do the "big" questions come from and why won't they go away? I suspect that kids don't come up with these questions on their own, but rather absorb them and their "importance" from contact with adults, which leads to pressure to resolve them.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 06:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank Schnittger:
 Why is it in someones interests to believe (say) that science is all a conspiracy.

Firstly, they enjoy the drama. Worrying that the world is going to end makes life more exciting than the day job.

Secondly it 'proves' that they're not really as stupid and powerless as science makes them feel.

Also, it's very rare for hardcore CT followers to be even slightly literate in basic science. Facts and paranoia look indistinguishable to them, because they don't have the background to tell them apart.

See this thread for a depressing example.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 07:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My point is that the "content" - such as it is - may very well be amplified noise. Reasonable hypothesises come and go. Neuroses accumulate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't Mel Gibson part of this faction?  Perhaps he's just angling for sympathetic treatment in an upcoming Hollywood Biopic?(although with the opinions of the last Bishop no doubt Financing becomes somewhat tricky)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 05:48:20 AM EST
He probably shares some ideas with them, but he isn't really part of that tradition, I don't think.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
His father ran his own traditionalist Catholic sect in Australia if I recall...

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 08:42:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I always thought it was allied to the French group. Interesting that there's a thread of anti-semitism in there, given young Mel's somewhat ill-judged  outbursts on that subject.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 01:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While Gibson was in Italy shooting the Passion he had his own priest to say mass daily. The mass was in Latin.
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 03:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Pope to launch Vatican on YouTube

Pope Benedict XVI is set to have his own dedicated channel on the popular video sharing website, YouTube.

Video and audio footage of his speeches as well as news of the Holy See will be posted on the site, the Vatican says.

Although the Vatican has its own website, the YouTube venture represents its biggest reach into cyberspace, says the BBC's Duncan Kennedy, in Rome.

So maybe a step towards modernity has to be counterbalanced?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST
But why does anyone care what the pope thinks?  I mean, we already know he's irrelevant to modern society.  So why give him oxygen?
by IdiotSavant on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:12:29 AM EST
Is this a question of what the Pope thinks, or what the Pope does? The Catholic Church has all the same a fair amount of influence in the world.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:15:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the Pope still rules over many people who are not part of modern society, at least mentally. There is Opus Dei, too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:38:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An official reaction from the Priestly Society's to Williamson's (repeated) Holocaust denial:

"We do not know the interview done by Bishop Williamson with Swedish television. As soon as we get it, we will submit it to scrutiny and get the advice of lawyers. It is clear that the only one responsible for the statements made by the Bishop, is the Bishop himself as well as that the statements do not reflect the views held by the Society of St. Pius X. In addition, Pope Pius XI  in his encyclica "Mit Brennender Sorge" warned about the godless Nazi regime and it's crimes.

You can watch the Holocaust denial part of the interview (conducted in English) here...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:23:07 AM EST


Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 06:38:34 AM EST
I heard the following on France Info this morning:

"un de ces quatre traditionalistes, Mgr Williamson, a nié l'existence des chambres à gaz pendant la Shoah dans un entretien accordé en milieu de semaine à la télévision suédoise. " Je crois qu'il n'y a pas eu de chambres à gaz (...) Je pense que 200.000 à 300.000 Juifs ont péri dans les camps de concentration, mais pas un seul dans les chambres à gaz", a-t-il déclaré au cours de l'émission "Uppdrag gransning" sur la chaîne publique SVT."

Cleaning up after a machine translation gives:

"one of these four traditionalists, Mgr Williamson, denied the existence of the gas chambers during the Shoah in an interview granted in middle of week on Swedish television. "I believe that there no were gas chambers (...) I think that 200.000 to 300.000 Jews perished in the concentration camps, but not one in the gas chambers" , he declared during the Uppdrag gransning programme on public channel SVT."

Source: http://www.france-info.com/spip.php?article242175&theme=14&sous_theme=15

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)

What a gentleman. I think I'll invite him over for tea and scones.

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.

by davel on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:20:41 AM EST
Oops, didn't see that I'm more or less repeating the end of the OP.

Still, it shocked me deeply this morning and I find it deeply disturbing.

We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.

by davel on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I heard the same, which inspired the post.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 10:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, it's been clear for a while that Ratty is way to the right of Wojtyla. At least as conservative on the sexual stuff, and far more so on everything else.  In Poland he's been systematically appointing bishops from the hard right wing of the church, while JPII tended to take them from the middle and liberal wings. The two exceptions over the past few years, ironically to the two top posts weren't really his choice. He appointed JP's old top adviser to the archdiocese of Krakow (similar to JPII's appointment of the right wing Glemp to the Warsaw post), and in Warsaw he appointed a moderate in a last minute scramble after it turned out that his preferred extreme right wing choice had worked as an informer for the secret police.
by MarekNYC on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 09:23:58 AM EST
Ratzinger was Wojtila's Chief Inquisitor so it is not exactly a surprise that he's more of a hardliner. After all, Ratzinger is a theologian where Wojtila was a communicator.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 09:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I always had the impression that JP2 and the Rattafarian were playing good cop - bad cop, but you seem to imply otherwise.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 02:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the gender/sexual stuff I think you're right. On the rest - no. JPII had a genuine commitment to religious tolerance, democracy, and reaching out to people of different views (as long as they weren't part of the Catholic hierarchy broadly understood - no place for democracy there). He began reaching out to secular leftists disenchanted with communism early on in his period as archbishop, on the grounds that regardless of their theological differences, they shared many broader social and political values. This was a rather controversial policy within the Polish Church whose conservative wing doesn't really see any difference between a liberal (neo or not), social democrat, or communist - all heirs to the French Revolution and proponents of modernity.

I also think he was more left wing in his socio-economic views, though that's harder to be certain of. The Church offers a dual critique of capitalism - one has to do with the evils of individualism and liberalism, the other with economic inequality. Both Popes speak of both aspects, but JPII tended to place more emphasis on the latter than Benedict, particularly post '89.

by MarekNYC on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 03:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mens insana in corpore corrupto.
by Sassafras on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 01:10:04 PM EST
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Pope move ignites Holocaust row

The Pope has lifted the excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church of four bishops appointed by a breakaway archbishop more than 20 years ago.

One of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's appointees, Briton Richard Williamson, outraged Jews by saying the Nazi gas chambers did not exist.

Two of the other three appointees are French while the fourth is Argentinean.



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 01:38:28 PM EST
outraged Jews

Only Jews? The BBC author exposes communalist thinking.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jan 26th, 2009 at 06:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Considering that this is in-character for Ratzinger, how can he be said to have gone bonkers? He must be on the record before he became Pope criticizing John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 09:52:20 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]