It seems, at least, that she understands where the separation of views really occurs:
Based on my in-person arguments to date, it seems like most of my atheist friends disagree two or three steps back from my deciding Morality is actually God. They usually diverge back around the bit where I assert morality, like math, is objective and independent of humans.
As far as Catholicism specifically, she might benefit from reading Elaine Pagels, who discusses at length the historical evidence of the founding of the Catholic Church. Notably, the selection of gospels to include in the New Testament was made specifically to support and cement the authority of the church, not for any well-founded empirical or philosophical reasons.
Catholicism is an organization as well as a belief system, and the organization is terribly, systemically corrupt. An official conversion implies endorsement of the organization as well as the belief system. For a prominent (former) atheist blogger, this seems like a morally questionable act.
To the best of my knowledge, this is a misleading account of how the books of the Bible were selected. My understanding is that it was as much of a popularity contest as anything.
And while you can identify a “proto-orthodox” faction among the various Christian groups fighting as early as the 2nd century, it was very different than today’s Catholic church, or even the Catholic church of Aquinas’ day.
To the best of my knowledge, this is a misleading account of how the books of the Bible were selected. My understanding is that it was as much of a popularity contest as anything.
The gospels which were included support the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, witnessed only by a select few. These few would, by virtue of witnessing the resurrection, have the authority to continue and shape the church. The gospels which were excluded portrayed the resurrection as a non-physical reappearance witnessed by many, which would have essentially turned an oligarchical structure into an egalitarian one.
It’s not that I think either of these versions is especially justified as a belief, but the presence of such contradictions so early in the church’s history makes its lack of credibility more obvious.
And while you can identify a “proto-orthodox” faction among the various Christian groups fighting as early as the 2nd century, it was very different than today’s Catholic church, or even the Catholic church of Aquinas’ day.
I don’t see the relevance of this. The Catholic Church derives its claim to truth from its Biblical foundations. If the foundation is rotten, then it’s rotten for all incarnations of the church. Further, the later rules and ideas that have been added into the church’s beliefs largely come from supposedly infallible papal decree, the infallibility coming from the authority of the successors of Peter (as the first to witness the resurrection). The edifice is very elaborate, and therefore it falls apart very easily.
The gospels which were included support the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, witnessed only by a select few. These few would, by virtue of witnessing the resurrection, have the authority to continue and shape the church. The gospels which were excluded portrayed the resurrection as a non-physical reappearance witnessed by many, which would have essentially turned an oligarchical structure into an egalitarian one.
Is this based on personal familiarity with all the texts involved? There aren’t many and they aren’t hard to find. Just knowing the texts makes this interpretation of history seem pretty unlikely, or at least simplified to the point of distortion. That being said, it is certainly among the plausible explanations for what occurred.
Further, the later rules and ideas that have been added into the church’s beliefs largely come from supposedly infallible papal decree, the infallibility coming from the authority of the successors of Peter (as the first to witness the resurrection).
The doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility has not played a major role in the development of Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, it almost never applies. I don’t want to sidetrack a really interesting discussion… but this seems like a pretty clear factual mistake that might as well be pointed out.
Is this based on personal familiarity with all the texts involved? There aren’t many and they aren’t hard to find. Just knowing the texts makes this interpretation of history seem pretty unlikely, or at least simplified to the point of distortion. That being said, it is certainly among the plausible explanations for what occurred.
This is based on Elaine Pagels’ research, as I said in my first comment.
The doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility has not played a major role in the development of Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, it almost never applies. I don’t want to sidetrack a really interesting discussion… but this seems like a pretty clear factual mistake that might as well be pointed out.
Now that you point it out, I realize I was conflating all instances of papal authority with papal infallibility, which is not accurate.
It seems, at least, that she understands where the separation of views really occurs:
As far as Catholicism specifically, she might benefit from reading Elaine Pagels, who discusses at length the historical evidence of the founding of the Catholic Church. Notably, the selection of gospels to include in the New Testament was made specifically to support and cement the authority of the church, not for any well-founded empirical or philosophical reasons.
Catholicism is an organization as well as a belief system, and the organization is terribly, systemically corrupt. An official conversion implies endorsement of the organization as well as the belief system. For a prominent (former) atheist blogger, this seems like a morally questionable act.
To the best of my knowledge, this is a misleading account of how the books of the Bible were selected. My understanding is that it was as much of a popularity contest as anything.
And while you can identify a “proto-orthodox” faction among the various Christian groups fighting as early as the 2nd century, it was very different than today’s Catholic church, or even the Catholic church of Aquinas’ day.
The gospels which were included support the idea of a physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, witnessed only by a select few. These few would, by virtue of witnessing the resurrection, have the authority to continue and shape the church. The gospels which were excluded portrayed the resurrection as a non-physical reappearance witnessed by many, which would have essentially turned an oligarchical structure into an egalitarian one.
It’s not that I think either of these versions is especially justified as a belief, but the presence of such contradictions so early in the church’s history makes its lack of credibility more obvious.
I don’t see the relevance of this. The Catholic Church derives its claim to truth from its Biblical foundations. If the foundation is rotten, then it’s rotten for all incarnations of the church. Further, the later rules and ideas that have been added into the church’s beliefs largely come from supposedly infallible papal decree, the infallibility coming from the authority of the successors of Peter (as the first to witness the resurrection). The edifice is very elaborate, and therefore it falls apart very easily.
Is this based on personal familiarity with all the texts involved? There aren’t many and they aren’t hard to find. Just knowing the texts makes this interpretation of history seem pretty unlikely, or at least simplified to the point of distortion. That being said, it is certainly among the plausible explanations for what occurred.
The doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility has not played a major role in the development of Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, it almost never applies. I don’t want to sidetrack a really interesting discussion… but this seems like a pretty clear factual mistake that might as well be pointed out.
This is based on Elaine Pagels’ research, as I said in my first comment.
Now that you point it out, I realize I was conflating all instances of papal authority with papal infallibility, which is not accurate.