Update - still pretty busy, but I do intend to come back to this, hopefully at the weekend.

re: God holding your destiny in his hands
Maybe we take that statement too literally. For Catholics (and that includes Archbishop Brady!!)it does not imply that your destiny is pre-determined, out of your control or uncontrollable. It simply implies that Gods arms/hands/love is around your future … Gods committment is not to decide your future - it is to walk with you on the journey. Astrology implies otherwise, and so is forbidden for Christians. If you find out the future, you are controlled by this information, and no longer live in the moment. (Gods name being ‘I am’)

I agree, Shazgood and Michael, with much of what you say in terms of a persons basic need to take responsibility for their own life and choices. … and yet i am quite happy to be a practising Catholic. In Ireland, i’m not sure if people can get their heads around that (In fact I generally avoid the subject cause people either want to give me holy medals or tell me my boss is a Nazi!!! )

I think that theres a real danger that reasoned sensible discussion about philosophy, agnosticism, atheism (which i respect though i disagree with!) and religion is difficult to have in a country still not coming to terms with its own ownership of its own story?? Do we have a way to go before people are still thinking of all discussions on religion in terms of their guilt at ‘not going to Mass’???

Anyway, have a good weekend!

Looking back now, I wouldn’t change anything I wrote there. But I wonder where my ire came from? I think it came from being brought up in a society with very little good alternatives to Catholicism - in terms of counteracting consumerism. I - like many thinking atheists - hate the false dichotomy of religion vs crass materialism, as if that is all there is. I believe there is a good, solid middle ground, where values and deep respect for nature and our society is coupled with critical thinking and scepticism of received truths.

Core to that belief (which is essentially Rationalism) is that religion fundamentally is wrong to assert its beliefs as absolute truths above all question. I am particularly not fond of people quoting me the bible. I don’t care what the bible says on anything (aside from it being of historical interest). I accept that many people hold it to be their inspiration. Fine. As long as they don’t then go on to believe it to be the Word of God! For that is where the madness starts.

Sorry for going on…

Religion generally doesn’t do that. It doesn’t leave open the possibility that its teachings might be wrong, because it claims that they are the word of a God. By doing this, it disempowers people from exploring what their life might come to mean to them, by closing down avenues of exploration with fear of an eternity of damnation. Because of this, and because of some of the behaviour of organised religions throughout history, I believe that religious belief is a harmful delusion.

With regard to the astrology issue, Archbishop Brady was not simply speaking to ‘his’ people about ‘their’ beliefs. I don’t even like the idea of calling them ‘his’ people, though I do know what you mean by it. He was speaking to them about another rival belief system (astrology) and he was trying to turn them away from that rival belief system. In other words, he was doing what you suggest that his critics are doing, but in a more structured way and with a more structured motivation.

This would be all very well, if it were two rival tennis clubs vying for members, or two rival soft drink manufacturers marketing their products. But religion often does more than that. Religion often seeks to control the lives of others outside of its own membership, by influencing the laws of the State. Even ignoring the hypocrisy of some of the behaviour of the institutional Catholic Church in Ireland on many of these issues, it is unhealthy for democracy to have ‘the word of God’ going unchallenged in the public arena.

I mean, to keep with the topic, Archbishop Brady was preaching a homily to Catholic faithful about Catholic truths. And it was percieved as false, as hypocritical or intolerable or just plain funny that he thought he had a right to do that.

To speak to ‘his’ own people, about their own faith system???

Surely people thinking that they can comment so freely on an internal teaching, is a statement that people think they are wiser-than, better-than, more-in-touch-with-truth than … the Bishop or those listening? Surely people sneering at his homily were making themselves out to be more certain of the reality … the truth !?!?

why would they do that if no one can be certain of the truth ?…. why bother correcting someome who is speaking to his own group on the matter?

Unless, a person wants to convince someone of their wisdom or their truth?

The reason that I give religions more flak for being contradictory is that they claim to be preaching the word of a God, and therefore they set the bar higher for themselves with regard to consistency. This is particularly so in the case of books like the Bible, which they claim to actually be the word of this God, as opposed to just be based on it.

With regard to the filters, of course you are right. Here are my main two filters:

Firstly, we can never know for certain whether anything is true. This is not just because we might not have all the facts, but because (a) to know something is true is to know that our beliefs correspond with reality (b) our beliefs happen in our minds (c) if we want to test the accuracy of our beliefs, we do this testing using our minds (d) so we are trying to test something’s reliability using itself.

Secondly, because we can never know for certain whether anything is true, I choose to believe what is most consistent with the evidence of my senses, based on reason. Or, as I put in an early comment above, I live my life on the basis that the rules of nature, as tested by repeatable and measurable scientific experiments, are correct until they are proven not to be.

So I differentiate between my filters – which allow for my beliefs to change if I get new evidence – and the filters of religious belief, which do not do this. I am talking about the process of my filters here, not the outcomes they produce.

On your final point, you are correct in more ways than the Germany example. There are numerous studies that show that, once you are above the poverty line, the amount of money that you have does not determine how happy you are. Yet people continue to pursue money in the mistaken belief that it will make them happier, or less unhappy.

RE: contradictory quotes. Why is it that we think contradictions in religion are a proof that we’ve been fooled? The equivalent is to say that the Irish Republic is a sham because some of its members/leaders can clearly be shown to have contradictory levels of respect for democracy, morality and/or republicanism. But surely the State is bigger than some of its members?? And the Jewish/Christian story is much bigger than Catholicism, let alone Popes!! Contradictions in a current position are one thing, but contradictions in a history are normal and a sign of development.

Question: i get the impression that you think that religions or superstitions are the only filter that people use to make sense of the world. As if others see clearly and without filters. Surely we are all constantly working from filters - e.g.a consumer culture or a scientific filter? In general, i think we all make our decisions on the basis of our learned filters, or our cultural assumptions.
For example: Many people in Ireland are working very hard to build a financially sound future for their family. However, I sometimes wonder if its a superstition to think that if you have a lot of money in the bank, then you’re safe and can’t be harmed. Maybe, accumulation of wealth without care for a healthy society is “an idea that helps to make people feel more comfortable”. But anyone who lived through Germany in the 30’s would tell you that a piece of gold, or a family contact in Switzerland, was worth far more than millions in the bank.

Also, in practical terms, the date of Jesus birth was later set as December 25, which was the feast of the Sun-god. And the halo is a clear visual lift from the Sun-god imagery.

You’re also right that early Christian leaders did oppose astrology, but that was as part of a power struggle between rival superstitions. They did not want their followers to excuse their behaviour by blaming the stars.

Yet some Popes have been linked with belief in astrology. And what’s the real difference between an astrologer predicting the future by interpreting the stars and, say, Daniel predicting the future by interpreting a King’s dream?

Unless you are filtering them through an existing belief in either, Christianity and astrology are variations on the same theme: superstitious belief, without evidence, in ideas that help to make people feel more comfortable.

Also, you’re right about the Bibles in the 1950s.

While Archbishop Brady might not have covered himself in glory with that homily … but the notion that Christianity was into divination at one stage, and then changed its mind, is pretty much a whitewash. Some Jews/Christians are/were, but the mainstream churches have, from the start, taught that we are to trust in God, not to try to figure out the future by ourselves. Which is exactly what the archbishop says, according to your quote.

From Deuteronomy (the book which laid down the rules for the covenant - how people should live etc): “There shall not be found among you anyone that…useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer” (Deut 18:10-11). If you’re bored you might also like to look at Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 19:26-26; 19:31; 20:6; Isaiah 8:19 and Malachai 3:5. !!!

The only thing i’d agree with you on is that the biblical injunction was against messing with dead spirits or sorcery. I don’t think its about newspaper horoscopes.

PS - i would be very surprised if most homes in Ireland has Bibles in the 1950’s …. i think that bible reading was considered a very ‘Protestant’ thing in Catholic Ireland, and too dangerous for ignorant lay people to be going on with!!!

The problem with pretty good belief systems is that they tend to get left behind when people build religions around them.

In a few generations time the followers of Blankpaiganism will be faithfully reciting those principles, while the elders of Blankpaiganism are taking their money and doing whatever they feel like.

And you will be looking down from Blankpaiganist Heaven shouting ‘Hey, come on, people, that’s not what I said…’