We, atheists, have a problem on our hands... We do not have an international company nor a small shop-front from which to sell the concept of being an atheist. We don't have a church not even a cottage industry... We do not have "followers" because we don't have anything to be followed for, except our raw essential human ethics based on sound analysis of reality and a lack of god(s). 

Apart from some famous atheists who can be counted on one hand for raking in a living from it, there is no money in atheism. 

There is plenty of cash in theism. 

And the cash-flow comes from selling grandiose illusions to the naive, selling books and symbolic thingies to the gullible, of raking money from pilgrimage of sinners in search of redemption, of passing collection plates on Sundays and of course embracing the idea of conservative profit-making in the name of god. The merchants never left the temple.

The technique of selling such ideals is the same as selling soap powder — with a bit more elevation. Religion sells salvation. It cleans souls. Atheism sells nothing. 

What are you going to take? Free nothing then death forever — or buy the illusion of heaven with eternal beatitude? No qualms. I know, you have too much cash in your hands... We have also been told by religion that this sometimes painful life is secondary to that in the sky which will be pain-free — while humanism suggests that we should make the most of being here without destroying something or someone. 

It is much easier to control a mob in fear of god than individuals who know how to organise their own lives without it. Despots, kings, tyrant know that...

Of course, we and a lot of Christian get the new pope's Laudato Si encyclical letter completely wrong because we look at the wood not the forest, so tells us a certain Christian person, Mary Taylor:

------------------------------

 

I have been reading with interest the reactions to Laudato Si'.

Many of them call to mind the famous story of the blind men and the elephant: each touched a part of the elephant, and then concluded that an elephant was very like a snake, or a tree trunk, or a rope, or a fan, and so on.

---------------------------

Rubbish... Mary, we are not blind... The analogy does not stick. We see the whole and the parts at the same time from a different point of view than that from within the intestines. 

As atheists, as scientists with no god, as different spiritual individuals and/or praying to the Shen or Vishnu, we cannot see how Ms Taylor can take us beyond her belief from which she judges our ignorance. She is a committed Christian. So she will see Laudato Si from a Christian perspective, with a bit of subconscious annoyance, though obvious praise.  She will dig into the Catholic beginning history to tell us more fairy stories with big words. 

God's creation with Eve and Adam in her own mind would not be a myth — unlike the Chinese, Indian or Roman myths of creation... Their myths with their silly gods do not wash like the glorious catholic one... 

All these myths are illusionary gap designed to allay our fear of death and make sense of it. There is no sense in death and there is no sense in life either... Most atheists do not fear death. Most believers panic... Have I been good? Am going to heaven? It is often at that time of trying to be good that most impure thoughts would pollute the mind of Christians or that they would do something stupid against their better human self — like going to war... 

 

------------------------------------

Mary Taylor adds:

 

There is no denying - and, in fact, Pope Francis does not deny - that there may be disagreements about prudential judgments. I leave that truth aside here.

------------------------------------

 

Ms Taylor is telling us something we lay people may not know about... 

But I was raised in the Catholic tradition and I know the tricks and the twists. As a rabid atheist, I have my small early 19th century gilded European prayer book on my desk and the James Bible nearby on a shelf... I know about the prudential judgements which are a Catholic way to tell people to be prudent in deliberating what they do or say, as long as the action that is concluded from such deliberation is done with the spirit of god... even going to war...

So what is the truth that Ms Taylor wants to leave aside here? Good question — I have no idea. I can only assume that with her following dissertation we will discover what she means.  So what are those disagreements about the prudential judgements? 

I guess that some Christians are not happy about some parts of Laudato Si and are polishing their guns.

Is it because the encyclical letter is going against the way the church has mostly behaved before, like sleeping with the comfortable but somewhat dangerous social system till today and that the letter is presenting a new look, contrary to this tradition, now embracing the planet and the sciences of it, with a sprinkling of god's benevolence and love?.... 

Is this why the Catholic American Republicans are quite uncomfortable with the Pope telling them that excess of "capitalism is the dung of the devil"? Conservative Christians could shiver at their relationship with cash being exposed as devilish.

------------------------------------

Taylor continues:

What I want to concentrate on is that there is always the danger of taking the part for the whole, which distorts the truth not only of the whole, but of the part. The blind man does not see that the whole elephant, and so he also misrepresents, for example, the trunk (all its functions, its structure, its connection to the other parts) as something very different - namely, a snake. One must encounter the gestalt, the form of the whole, to have a true understanding of the nature of the parts.

---------------------------------

 

Hum... to me religious believers are like the blind man playing with the trunk, thinking it's the arsehole. But to think of the trunk of an elephant as a snake is crazy, even should one be blind. Blind people would know the difference, should they have experienced touching a snake.

And the gestalt is made of gristle as well.

In psychology, we must accept that a whole is never perfect and that we learn premises and ideas that are wrong as well as have perceptions and ideas that are correct in/and (ir)relevant to the relative moment. Add salt.

This explanation would not wash in a technological nor a scientific situation. One cannot have wrongness in a design of a plane or scientific analysis beyond a critical point without the chance of catastrophic consequences. Psychologically, we can live comfortably with a large amount of wrong ideas, or ideas that clash with other people's ideas.

 

Our psychological beliefs are based on three major influences. Depending on our "individuality", these influences have various prominence. These influences are what we learn from culture, traditions (including religious) and the reinforcement thereof, all imprinted on a malleable natural unit in which instincts are like a base-coat. The third unit of our psychological makeup is our own perceptions which can lead us to "believe" or recognise something totally different to that of the cultural tradition. All of these often are in conflicts. We manage these conflicts daily by flexibility of mind, but mostly with prejudices and a-priori arguments.

With our belief in god, we tend to eliminate the natural aspects of ourselves. 

 

Laudato Si seems to redress this imbalance to a point, as it embraces nature — to the chagrin of profiteers and warriors, who, like many US Republicans, have used god as the flag on their vehicle of greed. 

Sciences are giving us new leads on our own purpose to decide. And this goes to ask how far we can denature our food and extend our comforts without destroying the planet (including other species). 

But few of us will indulge in living life through the complex scientific position of knowledge — especially in understanding the origins of our psychological manipulations. 

We prefer to believe in simplistic statements that to some extend we do not understand the absurdity of, but it does not matter. God is  our shepherd. Boom. End of argument. 

We coat these simplistic erroneous statements with mysteriousness to maintain the illusion and bamboozle the ordinary folks with words that mean little but sound like magic. Alleluia. Heil Hitler.

As soon as we (not me) try to explain our belief in god with various propositions anchored in the past and quote the illusions of others saintly person as an affirmation of beliefs, we only dig ourselves into a strangely deceptive circular matrix/hole — in which I do not want to be in.

We NEVER have a true understanding of the parts of life, nor of the whole, even in our wildest dreams. We can understand the parts and the whole of Laudato Si without having to accept the notion of god.

 

------------------------------

 

Here Ms Taylor is telling us about another weirdo:

 

...  Within Catholic thought, the quintessential approach which begins with "seeing the form" is communio.

Communio is not another "ism" - it is not a system, and it is not a theory. There is no manual or "Dummy's Guide" to communio thinking.

Communio is a communion of the body and blood of Christ (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:16) Now the Whole attains its full concreteness; everyone eats the one bread and thus they themselves become one ... 

...the Church is a "love story," 

------------------------------------
Dear Mary, despite some unwritten allures of superiority in this context, "humans becoming one with god", Communio is just another -ism — a belief. It is a belief system. Meanwhile, the "love story" has been used to cover a lot of sins from within the Church, including fighting wars with its cousins and indulging in scientific denials for many years, and from the bad behaviour of some of its representatives till today. 
Laudato Si is trying to fix all this while retaining the prayer beads.
The Pope has awakened the Church to the scientific relativity and, in his clever way, the pope is trying to make amend for previous misunderstandings from the Church— while holding the olive branch and spraying everyone with holy water, which the religious capitalists think stinks. Not everyone believe. 

The discovery of the Pentaquark should send shivers through the ranks of believers... But this monumental scientific event won't shake the rafters, because most mortals won't know what it means... Science is not "mysterious. It is just hard work. But we're lazy.

 

Humanism, as ethical relationships between humans without the hands of gods, is a good idea for a better and open modern society to function. in our decisions and actions, we need to consider the relationships between humans and the planet, including other life-forms. This is where our secular prudential judgement should be.

There is more chance of finding alien life in the universe than waiting for godot.

Gus Leonisky

Your local bird life expert.

------------------------------------

 

Appendix

 

http://ccgaction.org/socialdoctrine/definitions/prudential_judgment

 

From the Compendium on Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church:

Acting with prudence

547. The lay faithful should act according to the dictates of prudence, the virtue that makes it possible to discern the true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means for achieving it. Thanks to this virtue, moral principles are applied correctly to particular cases. We can identify three distinct moments as prudence is exercised to clarify and evaluate situations, to inspire decisions and to prompt action. The first moment is seen in the reflection and consultation by which the question is studied and the necessary opinions sought. The second moment is that of evaluation, as the reality is analyzed and judged in the light of God's plan. The third moment, that of decision, is based on the preceding steps and makes it possible to choose between the different actions that may be taken.

548. Prudence makes it possible to make decisions that are consistent, and to make them with realism and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one's action. The rather widespread opinion that equates prudence with shrewdness, with utilitarian calculations, with diffidence or with timidity or indecision, is far from the correct understanding of this virtue. It is a characteristic of practical reason and offers assistance in deciding with wisdom and courage the course of action that should be followed, becoming the measure of the other virtues. Prudence affirms the good as a duty and shows in what manner the person should accomplish it[1146]. In the final analysis, it is a virtue that requires the mature exercise of thought and responsibility in an objective understanding of a specific situation and in making decisions according to a correct will[1147].

-----------------------------

 

WASHINGTON — In the Reading, Ohio, neighborhood where Speaker John A. Boehner grew up, nearly every house had two things on the wall: a crucifix and a photo of the pope. “You never ever expected to meet the pope,” said Jerry Vanden Eynden, a lifelong friend of Mr. Boehner’s. “In all of our minds, the pope was the closest thing to meeting God in person here on earth.”

When Pope Francis comes to Capitol Hill in September, he will be the first pontiff to address a joint meeting of Congress, where more than 30 percent of the members are Catholic. The visit will fulfill a long-held dream of Mr. Boehner, who says only his working-class roots as a bar owner’s son are more essential to his core than his Catholic upbringing. He has extended offers to popes for the last 20 years, and Francis, after taking nearly a year to consider, was the first to accept.

The pope’s visit comes with inherent tension for many Republicans, including those who are Catholic. While he has made no changes in church doctrine, Francis has forcefully staked out ideological ground opposite that of Mr. Boehner and his party. He has excoriated the excesses of capitalism as the “dung of the devil,” pleaded for action to stop global warming and enthusiastically supported the new nuclear accord with Iran.