Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not dismissing anything. The Pope's intention was not to provide a comprehensive explanation of every single conflict to have occurred in world history. He was simply making an ad hoc comment about how many of the 20th century ideologies, which to him are a substitute for theism, have led to violence. He is not saying that atheism is the ultimate sourc ...[text shortened]... ep things under the rug, he acknowledges injustices in the past and sees atheism as altruistic.
Well, I had read Spe Salvi when it came out. I agree that he was not specifically condemning atheism, my reading of it was that he was saying:
Well, if you don't have theism, man seems to have a tendency to replace it with something else, and that something else tends to lead to mass murders and terrible crimes.
This is in my opinion, true (but note it's a tendency, not a certainty), the conclusions he seems to draw from this are not...
So if it's a big bad scary unknown whether you're going to have a secular dictator eating your babies, stick with what you know, theism, you can't be moral without it, despite the atheists making a jolly good show of attempting it.
Of course, I paraphrase, but no matter how you read it, Spe Salvi was an encyclical which claimed a secular state would lead to disaster and that religion was required as a tempering and guiding influence when it came to moral matters. I notice that such a tempering influence was not present during Hitlers little escapades. (I do not blame the church for Hitlers misdeeds, but rather see it as a bit rich for the current pope to claim that religion is a way of preventing atrocities, when his predecessors did nothing of the sort, and yes, that was in the 20th Century).
Ultimately this latest encyclical was a bogeyman report...
don't give up on theism kids, or Stalin will rise from the grave! Don't give up on theism kids, it is mans natural state to be immoral without religion!
Two equally ridiculous claims.
Incidentally, to answer the original poster, I think the reason the pope is not ridiculed to the same extent as evangelical christianity in the states is two fold...
1: It would be pointing out the obvious.
2: Catholicism, while slow at doing so, has at least acknowledged things like evolutionary theory, gravity etc, while the evangelicals tend to look on anything with "theory" in front of it with derision, demonstrating a woeful misunderstanding of the philosophy of science; at least the pope asks for expert advice before he says things like "
No, it just looks like stars are far away, god is actually slowing the light down!"... but since he never said that, he is consequently less of a target for criticism than the evangelical christians who do.
As an atheist who was "born" a catholic in Ireland, let me tell you, the various popes records on condoms and homosexuality as well as womens rights has led to a lot of heated debate and criticism, so don't think for a second that you can get away with the schoolboy "Waaaagh, why are they bullying my religion and not HIS! waaaaaagh"...
Catholicism is being discussed and debated as much as any religion, it's just that evangelical christianity in the states gives rational people so much more chaff to shoot down. (Examples include their misinterpretations of the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, expansion theory, paleontology, geology... the list is as long as your patience)