The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Richard Dawkins calls for Catholic "honesty"

"If they don’t believe in transubstantiation then they are not Roman Catholics," said Dawkins.

By Helen Lewis Published 09 June 2012 10:47

Richard Dawkins has called for Catholic "honesty". Photo: Getty Images

Richard Dawkins has said that Catholics who do not believe in transubstantiation - the doctrine that the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood during the Mass - should admit that they do not truly follow the faith.

The atheist author and evolutionary biologist made the remarks in Dublin, during a public interview as part of the city's Writers Festival.

The Irish Times newspaper had run a poll with Ipsos/MRBI which found that 62 per cent of Catholics said the bread and wine "only represents" the body and blood of Christ. By contrast, 26 per cent said that they believed it physically transformed.

“If they don’t believe in transubstantiation then they are not Roman Catholics,” Dawkins told the audience in the National Concert Hall. “If they are honest they should say they are no longer Roman Catholics.” Asked about the results of the poll, he said: “I wouldn’t hold back on the ridicule”.

Dawkins's comments provoked a riposte from columnist John Waters in the Irish Times about the "ideological smugness" of those questioned in the poll. He wrote:

Does “rationality” involve a requirement to understand the processes you claim to believe in or trust? If so, how many people could tell you, off the top of their heads, that the margin of error in any particular aspect of an opinion poll is calculated by multiplying by two the square root of the result obtained when the quantum at issue is multiplied by 100 minus itself and the answer divided by the sample? Give me transubstantiation any day – much easier on brain, mind and reason.

Dawkins's comments on the situation in Ireland follow similar remarks on the religiosity of Britain. In his guest-edit of the New Statesman magazine in December 2011, Dawkins wrote about the findings of a UK poll commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which showed that 54 per cent of those surveyed described themselves as Christian. He described them as "Census Christians", for only a third ticked the box because of their religious beliefs.

He added:

The bottom line is that anybody who advocates a strong place for religion in government cannot get away with claiming that ours is numerically a Christian country as a basis for giving religion privileged influence. This conclusion is further borne out by part two of our Ipsos MORI survey. Census Christians were asked explicitly about their attitudes to various social issues as well as their views on religion in public life. Seventy-four per cent of them said that religion should not have special influence on public policy. Only 12 per cent thought it should. Only 2 per cent disagreed with the statement that the law should apply to everyone equally regardless of their religious beliefs (so much for the Archbishop of Canterbury's opinion that sharia law in Britain is "unavoidable", and for attempts to exempt Christians from compliance with equalities legislation). More Census Christians oppose than support the idea of the UK having an official state religion, and the same applies to the presence of bishops in the House of Lords.

Less than a quarter of Census Christians think state schools should teach children a religious belief. Sixty-one per cent support equal rights for gay people and 59 per cent support assisted suicide for the terminally ill, given certain safeguards. And for those MPs worried about re-election and the need to appeal to the allegedly powerful Christian lobby, 78 per cent of Census Christians say that Christianity has no or not much influence on how they vote.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Religion Atheism Richard Dawkins

More from Helen Lewis

View the discussion thread.

96 comments

Wed, 2012-09-05 22:49 — Paul83 (not verified)

What poll? When did this happen? What Ipsos MRBI poll? I'm an Irish Catholic, I live in Dundalk, I asked my family and Catholic friends, they didn't hear about it. Can I cast my vote, might be a swing vote.
I'm being honest, I did not hear about this poll and I read the Irish Times.

Mon, 2012-08-27 15:24 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

Most people probably love some things so much that they would kill or die for them. Those things are their god. This quasi-Kierkegaardian notion of religiosity is a far cry from ruminating on whether some propositions are true or false.

Mon, 2012-08-27 14:54 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

I admire Dawkins but he does have a tendency of wanting others to accept his definition of a concept. Concepts are fluid and perhaps we all give different nuances of meaning to each concept. Why should the meaning a concept has for Dawkins be privileged over that of others?

Mon, 2012-08-27 10:51 — Joe Fonte (not verified)

Dawkins will soon appear before the sinless Jesus Christ to be judged, whether he wants to or not. And he by all evidence, will go to hell for ever.

God is not mocked. What Dawkins et al sowed, they will reap. If you don't believe that it's because you are decieved by Satan.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Fri, 2012-07-20 23:36 — JJ340 (not verified)

This is a great article, always been a big fan of Dawkins and the outspoken way he just challenges that which we've come to accept from the powerhouse that is the catholic church.

I've just started a blog discussing some of the pitfalls of religion and not to shamelessly plug but if anyone wants to give it a read and weigh in their opinion then by all means at http://thegreatpretense.blogspot.co.uk/

not to take away from the article but greatly appreciated :)
Dawkins what an inspiration

Fri, 2012-07-20 23:35 — JJR (not verified)

This is a great article, always been a big fan of Dawkins and the outspoken way he just challenges that which we've come to accept from the powerhouse that is the catholic church.

not to take away from the article but greatly appreciated :)
Dawkins what an inspiration

Fri, 2012-07-20 23:35 — JJR (not verified)

This is a great article, always been a big fan of Dawkins and the outspoken way he just challenges that which we've come to accept from the powerhouse that is the catholic church.

not to take away from the article but greatly appreciated :)
Dawkins what an inspiration

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:00 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Thu, 2012-07-05 21:39 — ahmadnasr89

صور رمضان 2012
تحميل صور رمضان 2012
صور رمضانية 2012
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2012

Sat, 2012-06-16 13:43 — eziweb (not verified)

I don't know what all these hullabaloo is all about. You can decide to believe in no God existence but you should also know that there are so many questions evolutionists have been able to answer.

Fri, 2012-06-15 18:32 — bahu virupaksha

Religion is an extremely private matter and Dawkins cannot go about declaring who is Roman Catholic and who is not. What gives him the right to declare that a poll which is itself based on questionable assumptions can, help him decide matters of faith. I think this smacks of intellectual arrogance and needs to be ignored.

Mon, 2012-06-18 01:26 — 48209 (not verified)

Richard Dawkins is merely expressing what is a Roman Catholic doctrine:
The Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who:
"denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue"

If you believe that it is not real blood and real body, you believe in consubstantiation, and you are not Roman Catholic.

Anathema is automatic excommunication, latae sententiae, the most serious:
an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the penitent to break the commandment against adultery;
a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a papal mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
a person who procures a completed abortion;
accomplices without whose assistance a violation of a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed.

Richard Dawkins' statement is merely a reality check.

Sat, 2012-06-16 00:57 — freedemocrat New Statesman (not verified)

The novel notion of Roman Catholic honesty, or indeed honesty on the part of any kind of religious adherent would be interesting indeed if pursued to the ultimate in their everyday lives. For example, why do we, as tax-payers, tolerate the religious using the National Health Service and NHS dentistry and optical services in the UK? Surely if their "faith" is genuine they would prefer to pray to their gods, goddesses and other mumbo-jumbo imaginary entities rather than resorting to the applied science developed by human beings?

Sat, 2012-06-16 02:09 — Keir

Science developed by Protestants, used by 'Freedemocrat' to express his (idiotic) view, a freedom won by Protestants.

Faraday and Clark Maxwell wasted their time, in this case.

Sat, 2012-06-16 09:30 — jankaas (not verified)

yes some science was developed by Protestants. some by Greeks and Romans, some by Muslims, some by Catholics, Hindus, Chinese etc etc etc. does that affect the point you made in any way?

Sat, 2012-06-16 00:57 — freedemocrat New Statesman (not verified)

Thu, 2012-08-23 18:05 — Jennie stevens (not verified)

Well in reply to this rather pompous and seriously daft statement by so called freedemocrat from someone whose family were and still are Catholic from the 14th Century is it ok that they died for England throughout the various wars. Or do we not count as citizens any more, bit like the Jews in 1930'3 Germany. If you don't want having use of the health service etc because of our religion then I suggest you just pay back everything we have paid in th the system and take a long hard look at your self.

Sat, 2012-06-16 09:26 — jankaas (not verified)

you seem to have a very peculiar view of what those with 'faith' believe their god(s) are obliged to do for them. i think it only a tiny minority who view illness as a message from god(s) and that a cure is only for Him/Her to resolve. off the top of my head Jehova's Witnesses, but most Judeo Christian faithful accept that it is for humans themselves to deal with illness. some of the greatest scientists had/have faith. science isn't about religion either btw.
added to that those of faith pay their taxes just as those without faith, so they've already paid for their healthcare. and yet you wish to deny them? seems ever so discriminatory and anti-secular.

Sat, 2012-06-16 02:22 — Keir

'Religion is an extremely private matter'

And yet, people who would have Roman Catholicism made illegal subsidise RC education.

If religion is indeed a private matter, the RC 'Church' is no religion. It is a political organisation; one that was instituted by violence, and has been maintained by violence.

Also by ignorance and stupidity. Ours.

Tue, 2012-06-12 21:47 — TWD (not verified)

How did you get this job Helen? Very poor and sloppy writing style. Daddy must have bought you this 'Deputy Editor' position, or standards at the NewStatesman are lower than your IQ...

Mon, 2012-06-11 22:59 — Fraziel1

Oh and i forgot, lets not forget the growing supply of scientific evidence all pointing to no God against the zero evidence pointing to his existence. DNA profiling has all but proven evolution in aimals to be fact yet still many beleiversdeny it. Or should i call them by their more appropriate name of evidence deniers.The problem is believers already have the answer they want so all the scientific evidence is ignored as they could not bear it were it to prove them wrong. Scientists on the other hand have no agenda and rather than try to make the evidence fit an already decided conclusion, like believers, they follow the evidence and try to come to a rational conclusion based on the evidence. In this case the evidence says there is no God. How else could creationists say that the earth is 10000 yrs old and that carbon dating is lies. In their eyes it can't be true as it disproves everything they believe.

Mon, 2012-06-11 22:50 — Fraziel1

@indu pendent, I was not taught to believe in God from an early age, as most believers are as their parents force their religious opinions on them and deny them choice. My parents let me hear the story of Christ, many many times, and said i had to decide for myself. NOT ONCE did they force their opinions on me. In fact religion was not mentioned by my parents but i still ws taught about it at school and heard about it on the radio and tv.The fact is that believers do not think for themselves as they have been brainwashed and indoctrinated as children. How else would a child born in britain to catholic children end up a catholic but were he or she to be born to a muslim family in Pakistan they would end up muslim. If believers would just ask them selves the dozens of questions that i asked myself and my teachers i do not understand how they could come to any other conclusion than God does not exist.

Knowing what i know about christianity i do not want to believe in it either, the same with islam. I am not scared of hell but what i am scared of is the lights going out and not coming back on again. That is the reality i am afraid to say. religion, in my opinion, is for weak scared people who cannot accept the reality of nature. You are born you live you die. That's it. Harsh but true.

As for faith schools I genuinely beleive they should not exist as they stifle free thought and amount to nothing more than brainwashing and indoctrination. If you really believe in God then let your children decide for themselves and don't force it on them to make sure they turn out the same as you. What ever happened to freedom of choice? faith schools and religious teaching take that away and it is appalling. the world would be a much moe stable happier place without it and thats as good a reason as any to want it to disappear.

Mon, 2012-06-11 12:03 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Remembering that joke by richard wilson on his radio thing a couple of weeks ago; some of us are " too poor to afford irony ".

Similarly some of us are too poor to understand what " transubstantiation" means, thank God. We can happily rejoice in the knowledge of the here and now ie Jesus telling us everytime we go to holy communion " this is my body" and "when we eat this bread and drink this cup.." etc.

Now then.. how marvellous it is we don't have to dance to anybody else's tunes or sing any body else's dirge's..even those paid for by vested interests of whatever kind.

Mon, 2012-06-11 07:19 — dancingcrane (not verified)

“You must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no life in you.” (John 6:53 ) Many of Jesus' disciples left him then, in protest. He did not run after them to explain a symbol, but repeated the astonishing assertion. Fact is, if you don't believe that the Eucharist is the true Presence, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you are not in union with the Catholic Church, no matter what you say. Dawkins, in this case, is absolutely correct.

Mon, 2012-06-11 14:20 — Keir

'“You must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no life in you.” (John 6:53 ) Many of Jesus' disciples left him then, in protest'

This was before the Last Supper, so must have had metaphoric meaning.

The RCC is the greatest indictment of human idiocy possible. Let it die, for pity's sake.

Mon, 2012-06-11 04:40 — andreas_fried (not verified)

nice thread. very interesting. thanks for sharing this information.
team ina & freedom
free ebooks keys to wealth

Mon, 2012-06-11 02:00 — dgdfghfh (not verified)

（==== http://www.flying4biz.com ======= ）
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD
Now!
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Jeans price is $34
Jersey price is $29New era cap price is$16
Accept Credit card payment ,Paypal payment, Western Union and electronic bank transfer
Free shipping.Door to Door services!
5 days arrive your home or you
ur friends’ adress by ems.dhL.UPS
Click my link under here
http://www.flying4biz.com

Sun, 2012-06-10 22:26 — Fraziel1

Good on you Richard. Keep up the attacks on these non thinking brain washed fools that are still afraid of the dark.

Mon, 2012-06-11 00:33 — Indu Pendent

Faizel there is irony with your superiority complex. Millions of people died fighting for the freedom to practice religion. Why attack people who want to belief something different than you?

I guess you are not brainless and have already worked out the difference between m-theory and God and whether both are mutually exclusive or whether trust in one and belief in the other are mutually exclusive. We can see that because you think for yourself and dont just mindlessly follow your leader.

Do you think the state has a role to play in wiping out religions e.g. through educating religion out of society? Funny how thousands of parents are willing to pay to avoid sending their kids to athiest state schools.

Mon, 2012-06-11 10:48 — Nefrubyr (not verified)

You write "millions of people died", and then unhelpfully use the word "attack". Atheists are not attacking believers. We criticise them. We ridicule their beliefs. We do not attack them. We do not persecute or oppress them. We seek open discussion, not war.

"Do you think the state has a role to play in wiping out religions e.g. through educating religion out of society?"

The state has a role to play in educating people, certainly. If religion cannot survive in an educated populace, that's its own problem. Unfortunately, there is every sign that it can and does survive.

"Funny how thousands of parents are willing to pay to avoid sending their kids to athiest state schools."

Which atheist state schools are these? The ones with a legally mandated daily act of Christian worship?

Sun, 2012-06-10 21:20 — Ellie (not verified)

Mr Dawkins doesn't believe in this set of belief's, which is fine. It's fine for him to say he doesn't believe, it's fine for him to say that he thinks it's ridiculous to believe these things. All fine, I disagree with Dawkins on a huge number of issues but I believe he has the right to say them.

What he does not have the right to do is to tell other people what they believe and that if they have problems with certain parts of the faith then they can't believe in any of it. Mr Dawkins may be highly educated, he may have thought about things deeply, I do not argue with any of that, or disagree with everything he says. But none of his achievements or his belief's entitle this man to tell another living being what they do or do not believe.

Mon, 2012-06-11 13:19 — Pk (not verified)

Every religion has to have rules about who is a member. The Catholic Church regards the Catholic who repudiates transubstantion as a Protestant - ie a Christian who has declared independence from the Roman Church. The person who knows a teaching is essential for being a Catholic and rejects it should look for another Church. He should not be pretending to be a Roman Catholic. To go through the motions of staying when he can join his local Anglican Church smacks of sectarianism. If he is to be considered a Roman Catholic then the word hypocrite becomes meaningless. You cannot be a genuine member of any community if you reject its ideals. Any Catholic who does not believe but who is trying to can be a Catholic. The one who is not trying is not. Morever, an individual Catholic who acts as if he can pick and choose what to believe is not recognising the Pope as the head teacher of the Church who stands in the place of Jesus Christ.

Sun, 2012-06-10 21:00 — Arch (not verified)

I fail to understand why Mr. Dawkins is always so militant against religion. If he wishes that those who do not believe in transubstantiation are not considered Catholics how should they be grouped? Whether they follow the Bible to the letter or not, if they have faith and consider themselves belonging to that faith isn't it sufficient?
He always seems to me to have an extreme chip on his shoulder. He believes one thing, others believe something else, why is that so repulsive to him?
I find his polls incresingly tedious, self-aggrandising and downright disrespectful. Faith can be a great support to people and if it is the crutch they wish to use to help them deal with the daily pressures they face then why is it wrong? Surely it is better than turning to something more destructive.
Personally, I would not align myself to any particular religion and I am aware of the problems it can cause, however why does aethism need to join this fight?

Mon, 2012-06-11 09:19 — SimonNorwich (not verified)

You only need to consider the Catholic Church's cover up of child abuse to see just one reason why Richard Dawkins is militant against religion.
Why do people who don't believe in the transubstantiation need to be grouped at all? I think that's a key point that he's making. Religious organisations like to brand people from birth (and for life) with the name of their religion. That's why people think that they are Catholic even if they don't actually believe in the Catholic doctrine. And that's why religious organisations get away with laying claim to represent huge numbers of people. Dawkins has pulled a string and the whole thing is unravelled.

Mon, 2012-06-11 19:42 — jankaas (not verified)

"Why do people who don't believe in the transubstantiation need to be grouped at all? I think that's a key point that he's making. "

and Dawkins is making this very point by.....? ......yep, by grouping those people but in a manner that pleases him. utterly pointless and quite petty.
the only thing that should matter to anyone is that no single group, whether religious or otherwise, receives special privileges. i could not care less if someone wants to thought of as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Bhuddist, Klingon, Jedi or Napoleon as long as they don't break our secular laws.

Mon, 2012-06-11 01:18 — Keir

'CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.'

RCC Council of Trent: the Thirteenth Session

('Anathema' means 'cursed'.)

Sun, 2012-06-10 19:24 — Keir

Political farce:

'He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine' - Vatican canon law.

Forget the crucifixion. Catholic priests don't want to copy Jesus _that_ way.

Sun, 2012-06-10 17:06 — simoned

Hmm, what does catholicity has to do with it? Even Muslim lye sometimes :|. joc on

Sun, 2012-06-10 12:49 — martinchoops

The bottom line... belief in transubstantiation is an article of faith and can not be resolved by rational material/physical means as true or false. It is nevertheless meaningful (in the sense that "Love", that is also not rational in material/physical terms, is meaningful).

Sun, 2012-06-10 17:01 — Keir

'transubstantiation is an article of faith'

But it is central to the existence of the cult of the Vatican. When Constantine saw his 'vision', he decided that the paganisms of mighty Rome, that kept control of the plebeians via priests offering sacrifices, would have to have a lick of 'Christian' paint. So, his title Pontifex Maximus, Supreme Sacrificer, was transferred to a 'Christian' puppet, and he would continue to control the plebs via his dispensers of imperial grace, as before. The theory of transubstantiation is total madness, but with official support, and a bit of soldiery at hand, it's amazing what people will say they believe.

And now they don't say they believe, because it's obvious bull, and in effect they are not Catholics. They have no need of priests, or a pope to authorise priests to confect God out of bread. They eat meat on Fridays, they use condoms, they sleep around, get tipsy and do what everyone else does.

But that's Catholicism. It was the same in the Middle Ages, except that they believed in transubstantiation; though it made no difference to anything.

Except to the control of predatory priests, of course.

Mon, 2012-06-11 00:22 — martinchoops

Hi Keir,

Please take a look at my main posting below this one.

Referring to Constantine does not reflect on the tradition of the Eucharist that goes back to the 1st century AD. It was not then, and is not now a political thing.

Referring to your negative perceptions of Catholicism is off the point here. I'd just say I don't see it that way, by and large what I do see in the vast majority of Catholics who do good, because it is part of their gracious nature. I also see a lot of anti-catholic bias and hate about (see... http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/25965/subject/ReligionTheology/?view=us... )

For the bad aspects of Catholic current issues, these need to be addressed and resolved. I think they are, but too slowly and conservatively for my preference.

Mon, 2012-06-11 14:36 — Keir

'the tradition of the Eucharist that goes back to the 1st century AD.'

Cultic nonsense.

'Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.' Ac 2:46 NIV

Before the advent of teabags, a pot of tea prompted the question, "Who'll be mum?" But the invasive imperial cult said, "I'll be Jesus."

Then, priest, be crucified. Don't mess about with preliminaries, waving your bread in the air, like a priest of old Israel. Get serious.

Sun, 2012-06-10 14:53 — graham pat (not verified)

This doesn't address ArDe's logical point. At crucial stages in the 16th century, transubstantiation was the acid test. You believed, you're an ArSee, you don't, you can be anything else. My wife, a long time ago, who comes from a southern European country, claimed to be a Catholic. Do you believe in transubstantiation, I asked. Of course, not, the mass is just a symbol. A few years later we had a lift from a pair of Franciscans, in her country. I asked - is it true that... Yes, it is, they said, in spite of her confident denials. Nobody you see is asking you to justify it rationally. A God who intervenes can do so anywhere. You believe that, and the rising again, and parthenogenesis and so on - why not? But if you don't believe in TS, ArDe says, come out and say that you are a protestant.

Sun, 2012-06-10 15:33 — martinchoops

Hi Graham,

Catholic Theology is very Thomist still, and Aquinas made the point of substance and accidents, re the Eucharist from. Actually this argument is based on an Aristotelian one. (see... http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html )

My point is that Catholic lay folks (who are given the short version in their Catechism introduction) that say they can not believe they are actually eating the body of Christ are not being unreasonable, if they don't distinguish between essence and existence, IMO. But once you do, then it is not an issue of unreasonable/irrational faith I think (since "true essence" is beyond physical rationality resolution).

Afterall, many followers of Christ left him when he made it clear that they would have to actually eat of his substance to have eternal life (John 6:53-66). If you think that the Eucharist is a form of eating human flesh in existential terms and not essence terms then many would leave today. Some take it on blind faith (that can't be bothered with the theology), others understand the intellectual point.

Sun, 2012-06-10 13:32 — Psittacosis (not verified)

If a belief cannot be resolved by rational/material/physical means as true or false, it should be laughed at and discarded into the dust bin of history. "Love" can be explained by hormones and neuroscience, entirely within the material.

Sun, 2012-06-10 14:35 — martinchoops

Hi psittacosis,

Laughing at something you don't understand is a bit hysterical or pitiful.

You say "Love" can be explained entirely "within the material" is something you are not in a position to prove is it? It is your positivist dogma.

Neuroscience does not understand well the cybernetic interplay within the distributed intelligence of the human being, the endocrine system is a case in point. We can learn to observe and control fear and the adrenalin response, by an act of will (something we call courage). But neuroscience does not really understand the concept of volition or consciousness in general. You can have faith that in time that it will, but that is a faith in scientism. Our own consciousness, and understanding of love, may be beyond our ken - a kind of self-referential Gödelian incompleteness.

I suggest you don't laugh at what you don't understand - it makes you laughable :)

Sun, 2012-06-10 12:35 — martinchoops

Today is Corpus Christi and I'm moved to respond to this article

To say you do, or do not, reasonably believe in something requires you to understand what that something is, so that you can say your position on belief has a reason (maybe a rational or intuitive one). By and large transubstantiation is not well understood by most lay Catholics, and almost certainly not Dawkins and New Atheists in general.

Yes, "Transubstantiation" is that the Eucharist is in actuality the body of Christ. But it does not stop there, it is also entails understanding the issue of substance/essence and accident/existence. To all material and physical tests that doctrine says the host has the phenomenological "accidents" (what we sense) of a wafer/bread, what changes in the Sacrament is the "essence" or "substance", something beyond the physical accidents of particular experience and physical test. In principle what is "of Christ", in the substance of the Host, is true and real, not in anexistential sense, but in the actual essence.

You can be Existentialist and say existence precedes essence (relating essence to the periphery of a meaningless metaphysics), but that is a doctrine not a fact. It is a doctrine of denial for the sake of avoidance of a inconvenient argument that you've become tired of.

You can be a Verificationist/Logical Positivist and say that what can not in logical analysis or empiricism can not be proven true, is either false or meaningless in principle, and thus "essence" , as for metaphysics, is false or meaningless. But that principle is also a doctrine that can not be proven true by its own methods and is this self annihilating and either false or meaningless in its own terms.

Thus to deny the POSSIBILITY that the argument of essence (and transubstantive spirituality) could be true is intellectually dishonest to a person who understands the point. We can not say if the Host is in essence that of Christ from a rational perspective, only that it may be if we allow the concept of essence to be discussed.

SO... we must ask ourselves. Are Catholics being honest or New Atheists (at least those who are not ignorant of philosophy) being intellectually dishonest (the others being merely ignorant of the point)?

Sun, 2012-06-10 14:13 — Richard Powell (not verified)

You say that "[t]o say you do, or do not, reasonably believe in something requires you to understand what that something is". This is just not so. There is a difference - an assymetry - between believing, and not believing. In order to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation it may be necessary to understand it. But it is not necessary to understand it, in order not to believe in it. I don't have the faintest idea about the myths of Asmat people of New Guinea; and I do not need one, in order not to believe in them. I may be quite wrong in not believing them, but I am not acting irrationally or inconsistently by withholding assent.

Mon, 2012-06-11 09:49 — martinchoops

Hi Richard,

I catch and accept your point, but I do say "reasonably believe", and that is meant to imply belief or disbelief for a reason.

As you say you can not believe in something because you're not aware/understand it and it is nevertheless not part of your belief systems. There is belief, non-belief (for a reason) and non-belief (for no reason).

Your example of New Guinea myths that you are not aware about is non-belief (for no reason). If you are aware of say one tribes belief about cannibalism, you may understand enough about cannibalism to say you don't believe in it for a specific reason - it may be a good reason or a bad reason but it is a reason nevertheless.

Sat, 2012-06-09 19:49 — Indu Pendent

Given British Christianity is a better alternative to the one peddled by Dawkins (in which he is a famous author with lots of attention and money for himself) lets stick to British Christianity. Even if you are a Muslim - at least then you will be free to practice your faith without the biggoted prejudice of the athiest state bringing you down.