Something small and round

[Reenk Roink]

Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

Agreed, the Catholic Church's power and influence is simply majestic. You really must tip your hat to it.

Besides, "proof" when talked about in a legal or empirical context is so weak and useless anyway, especially when talking about the metaphysical (of course I don't really know the particulars of Scientology - is Xenu perceptible by humans according to the tenets of Scientology itself?) and so on so I can't comment on the reasons why some court () convicted () Scientology of fraud (if Scientology's tenets actually do state some test which was failed in court, then I take back my and two of the 's).

The Knock event however, is disdained by the Church. They think Joe Coleman is bringing the whole religion thing into disrepute. Which is immensely ironic for an organisation that has just had St Theresa's thigh bone trundling round the UK to serious crowds.

Why is it ironic Banquo? To the Catholic Church, this man and his visions are not authentic while the bone of the saint in their eyes and the benefits it emanates are (note I don't know about this incident so I'm just making some wild assumptions of what I know about the Catholic Church and it's position on the remains of their saints - correct me if I'm wrong). Where is the irony?

Yet in my experience, it is just these "mystical" attachments that give the Roman Catholic faith a great deal of attractive power. Ritual is enormously important to human beings and sun or ancestor worship are ancient tradition.

All religions depend on suspension of disbelief to begin with.

Well believing anything depends on a suspension of disbelief of course.

If one tries to be more consistent and claim that all traditions have validity, one gets into terrible trouble with conflicting "plans" and divine natures. (For example, God cannot be both a personal, loving friend and a bloodthirsty fan of blood eagles). Either that or you end up as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Agreed here, the universal validity of all religions runs into way too many problems. An exclusivist approach is best, perhaps granting that other religious traditions may have aspects that are true or were previously valid.

I'm not really interested in the usual "well it's all rubbish anyway" responses. If you believe that, of course it's simple. What I would like to try and understand is how our personal philosophies draw the line between cult and truth, faith and lunacy; and how they might be reconciled in the face of reason.

As Rhyfelwer has stated, it may be just a matter of "my religion is right and other religions aren't".

Furthermore, some people would scoff at having "reason" be elevated to a position where it can arbitrate between these matters. Why the hell aren't people skeptical about say sensory perception like they are about so many other things!

And here we arrive at the crux of what I believe you are getting at:

what confuses me is that if one makes that step, how it is possible to then claim your revelation is the exclusively correct one? In this example, the Catholic hierarchy condones one sort of visionary yet bridles at another. But more widely, Christians don't accept any revelation from the Norse pantheon and so on.

and

My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.

Padre Pio is a classic example. For a long time, this evident self-harmer was rightly scorned by the Church and various popes. Then, as his cult took hold, they reconsidered. On what basis? The marketing franchise (wouldn't be the first time)? He's now a saint. What rational process allows this kind of re-assessment?

My own conjecture on your first question? It comes from a kind of deep psychological substrate, based on upbringing of course (there may be some innate thing that makes us go to the supernatural - but as for the particular religious tradition one espouses I think it is fairly uncontroversial to state that ones upbringing is what essentially embeds the thing in the mind).

It seems that you, as a (presumed) outsider in this matter, require some kind of "independent benchmark of assessment" but the believer will not. We'll deal with the situation of indirect reports of such "magic" instead of actual direct encounters (as one can easily see why someone would be convinced of something he actually perceived such as Mr. Joe Coleman himself).

Take this scenario: There is a Catholic, who hears two reports of a miracle. One is from a church authority and the other is from some Norse priest. Is it really hard to see why he would likely believe the first report and reject the second report? To him, he already believes his religion to be true, and he knows that the tenets of his religion allow for miracles and visions and so on. Also, given the doctrines of the church, any kind of belief in a polytheistic pantheon such as that of the Norse gods is irreconcilable. So he would dismiss out of hand the Norse priests report as a delusion (or perhaps he believes the priest was a victim of some trickery by a demon or evil spirit).

Leaving my disdain for "reason" to get the spot of ultimate arbiter for a bit, the "rational process" is there for this Catholic my dear Banquo, it is just based on principles the man already holds.

To quote a somewhat famous Catholic:

As the other sciences [he uses the term very broadly here - not just confined to natural science] do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are articles of faith [I actually disagree about this but that's another topic], but from them it goes to prove something.

By the way on the Padre Pio case, the rational process can simply (and cynically) be said to be the popularity of the figure.