Pope Says Condoms to Stop AIDS May Be Acceptable

[Catman]

I love condoms

 

[melon]

He's a former Nazi collaborationist who has called homosexuality a disease, 'an ideology of evil'. He was actively involved in covering up the crimes of child rapists and as far as I am concerned he should be in prison for this alone.

I don't understand why you and other intelligent and well-read people on here are giving any of his faith-based, irrational and in some cases, downright bigoted 'arguments' the time of day.

My entire point is that the "former Nazi" part of your statement here is not only the weakest aspect, but also the most oft repeated and most unnecessary part. The rest of what you said is more than fair game in criticizing him--so why do we need to resort to "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacies instead?

This is not a defence of him, but a call for better arguments!

 

[pgv]

What types of faith-based arguments do you think are reasonable?

Why?

A faith-based argument is certainly not irrational - in some instances 'faith based' can in itself mean coming from a stand-point of morality (Kant, Hick, Moltmann etc.) and I cannot see how any opinion coming from a point of subjective 'reason' is in any way superior to 'faith.' Forming judgements based on a faith in social, moral values is no different to forming judgements based on a faith in a divine principle/ an omnipotent being/a reliance on scripture and hence a straining towards a good and 'moral' life.
If you're going to condemn faith as irrational, then that doesn't just limit itself to a faith in God(/s) - it may be deemed irrational by some aspects of modern Science, yes, but then on whose authority (philosophically) does Science constitute the absolute, rational truth anyway?

Faith based arguments I'd consider rational were ones that allowed for the person to appreciate their own incapacity for judgement (and hubris in doing so) and therefore opening the door for understanding and social tolerance, in a consideration of the greater good for the wider community. This does not mean exclusively for those within that specific religion, but the community of the world at large. There's much scope for being moral within faith - see the work of Karl Barth, one of the best examples of this, who absolutely extolled the Christian's duty to speak up against what is morally wrong (explicitly here referencing Nazism) and support that which is right (Democracy, some Socialist ideals, the emancipation of the woman and the working classes, the right to civil freedom etc.)

 

[financeguy]

A faith-based argument is certainly not irrational - in some instances 'faith based' can in itself mean coming from a stand-point of morality (Kant, Hick, Moltmann etc.) and I cannot see how any opinion coming from a point of subjective 'reason' is in any way superior to 'faith.' Forming judgements based on a faith in social, moral values is no different to forming judgements based on a faith in a divine principle/ an omnipotent being/a reliance on scripture and hence a straining towards a good and 'moral' life.
If you're going to condemn faith as irrational, then that doesn't just limit itself to a faith in God(/s) - it may be deemed irrational by some aspects of modern Science, yes, but then on whose authority (philosophically) does Science constitute the absolute, rational truth anyway?

Faith based arguments I'd consider rational were ones that allowed for the person to appreciate their own incapacity for judgement (and hubris in doing so) and therefore opening the door for understanding and social tolerance, in a consideration of the greater good for the wider community. This does not mean exclusively for those within that specific religion, but the community of the world at large. There's much scope for being moral within faith - see the work of Karl Barth, one of the best examples of this, who absolutely extolled the Christian's duty to speak up against what is morally wrong (explicitly here referencing Nazism) and support that which is right (Democracy, some Socialist ideals, the emancipation of the woman and the working classes, the right to civil freedom etc.)

But is that not just saying that the faith-based arguments you consider rational are the ones that happen to coincide with your ideas on social justice? The faith-based arguments of, say, US Southern Baptists, are likely to lead to very different ideas as to what constitutes 'moral' commuity values - why are they any more or less rational?

I can accept that Christian aid organisations do good and worthwhile work but I always have the faintest suspicion that they are also seeking to convert people to their faith using borderline devious means.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If you're going to condemn faith as irrational, then that doesn't just limit itself to a faith in God(/s) - it may be deemed irrational by some aspects of modern Science, yes, but then on whose authority (philosophically) does Science constitute the absolute, rational truth anyway?

I don't think that science constitutes any ultimate truth. It is a process that generates analogues that approximate the world in robust and testable ways. It shouldn't be justified upon anybodies authority and ought to gain legitimacy on the basis of how well different pieces fit together in a framework of knowledge. I don't think that moral philosophy is entirely encompassed by science - I think that origin of moral sentiments is evolutionary but the justifications for what we ought to do is philosophy.

Faith based arguments I'd consider rational were ones that allowed for the person to appreciate their own incapacity for judgement (and hubris in doing so) and therefore opening the door for understanding and social tolerance, in a consideration of the greater good for the wider community. This does not mean exclusively for those within that specific religion, but the community of the world at large.

Where is the faith component of this position? I think that you are advocating a suspension of judgement because of incomplete knowledge. I disagree with that outlook in principle because I think some world-views are mutually incompatible, and in practice because there are barriers to social tolerance. I don't think bigots should be granted very much respect in the public sphere, and personally I don't think religious leaders deserve as much influence over public discourse in areas which they are vastly unqualified to comment upon.

It's fine enough that you are sympathetic with this position but can you please highlight where faith enters into it.

I think that we base many moral choices on the consequences of actions. I wonder if you could argue that generally wanting to minimise harm is a faith-based position which is equally legitimate to its opposite of maximising harm, or would you reference the foreseeable suffering which would result from such a position.

Lastly could be clear about how we are using the word faith. I take it as a belief held in the absence of justification.

 

[the iron horse]

I love condoms

I don't know why.

It's like chewing gum with the wrapper still on

 

[the iron horse]

I don't know why.

It's like chewing gum with the wrapper still on

Waiting on a reply to this comment.



God invented sex.

Are you you thankful?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

 

[anitram]

Waiting on a reply to this comment.

I am sure that when your daughter turns 16 and her boyfriend tells her that having sex with a condom is like chewing gum with the wrapper on, you'll be happy that he sees it that way.