He’s Out To Get Me

And in recent Catholic Church news, possibly relevant to the ongoing discussion between my friend Biff and I in another post’s comments, we have the current Pope lashing out at… atheists:

Pope Benedict, in a new encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history.

…

The Pope seemed to be addressing the fresh interest in atheism in the developed world with phrases such as: “Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope.”

And here I was feeling hopeful. Sigh. Whether he means “there’s no hope for man without God” or “man cannot have hope without God” it’s equally ridiculous.

Recall my earlier post on some of the early moves in Mr. Ratzinger’s papacy.

Oh, and for those of you not familiar with Catholic doctrine, an “encyclical” is a letter sent by the Pope which is explicitly addressed to Roman Catholic bishops of a particular area or to the world, usually treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine. However, the form of the address can vary widely, and often designates a wider audience, as in this case.

Doctrine further holds that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question. Or as Pius XII put it “But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.”

So I guess we better just agree with Benedict and stop thinking about it.

Me, I’m ready to stop thinking about atheism, but probably not in the way His Popeosity means. More in a Sam Harris kind of way:

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

and, of course:

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

Yeah, I could get behind that.

And if I weren’t an atheist, I wouldn’t have to worry about the Pope being after me, or the electorate fearing me.