site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   3169 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 18, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This weekend, I became obsessed with the question of whether Scientology chief David Miscavige (who grew up in Scientology and took over upon Hubbard’s death in 1987) actually believes in the mythos. If I have time, I’ll write a moderate effort-post, but I’m curious since I know there are other scientology nerds here (it is one of the oldest ‘very online’ hobbyist topics, after all), what do you think?

I sometimes wonder if the Pope actually believes in the mythos. Not at the level of "yes, God exists and wants us to be good, but everything else about the doctrine is waves hands", but at the level of creed: "of course God is triunite, of course Jesus was true man and true God in one person, of course the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son, of course it's the blood and body of Jesus that we use for the Eucharist" etc.

I'd expect many have. In recent history, I know Ratzinger, at least, wrote a lot on theology.

Yeah.

I don't really know enough about Catholicism to say, but I assume that that advancement of clergy to higher positions doesn't directly select for who seemingly believes the hardest in the doctrine. I mean, those who genuinely lose faith are probably going to self-select out, but someone who doesn't really have a deeply-held belief in the truth of the Bible could still be a loyal cleric simply because they see the church and its' teaching as an overall net good in the world that should be maintained. Or because they personally gain from it.

And that element of belief also seems like the easiest part to fake?

I mean, assume that you commit to the cloth out of a true belief in the divinity of Jesus, the supremacy of the Pope et al., but after many years you simply do not observe the evidence that would support the churches' teaching about God (I do not make a comment on whether he exists or not, here), and see the churches' failures up close. Do you continue to present yourself as a believer on the basis of simple inertia, do you double down on your faith, or do you decide to simply 'game the system' and see how far you can get?

The whole thing about martyrs is that they demonstrated their ultimate belief by maintaining it in the face of the most serious oppression and sanctions which tends to make it quite obvious that they were acting on a true belief that held serious meaning to them. We don't see many martyrs for Christianity these days.

So returning to the topic, I also would guess that Scientology does NOT select for 'true believers' in terms of who gets leadership positions, and the whole thing seems even more prone to abuse than most other mainstream religions, so I would absolutely bet in favor of Miscavige being a fairly convincing charlatan, if you were to stick him in a high-resolution brain scanning device and probe the nature of his actual vs. stated beliefs.

you commit to the cloth out of a true belief in the divinity of the Pope et al

If you did that I'd be exceedingly concerned because we don't believe the Pope is divine 😁 Might I suggest you go next door where they're offering free personality tests and clearing sessions?

Think I mixed that up with Papal infallibility.

The whole thing about martyrs is that they demonstrated their ultimate belief by maintaining it in the face of the most serious oppression and sanctions which tends to make it quite obvious that they were acting on a true belief that held serious meaning to them. We don't see many martyrs for Christianity these days.

We don't see them in the West much because it's rare for people to kill Christians qua Christians these days. Not that it never happens, but it's rare. In other places, such as several Muslim majority countries or anti-religious authoritarian countries like China and North Korea martyrs are still quite common.

Yeah.

I don't really know enough about Catholicism to say, but I assume that that advancement of clergy to higher positions doesn't directly select for who seemingly believes the hardest in the doctrine. I mean, those who genuinely lose faith are probably going to self-select out, but someone who doesn't really have a deeply-held belief in the truth of the Bible could still be a loyal cleric simply because they see the church and its' teaching as an overall net good in the world that should be maintained. Or because they personally gain from it.

And that element of belief also seems like the easiest part to fake?

I mean, assume that you commit to the cloth out of a true belief in the divinity of the Pope et al., but after many years you simply do not observe the evidence that would support the churches' teaching about God (I do not make a comment on whether he exists or not, here), and see the churches' failures up close. Do you continue to present yourself as a believer on the basis of simple inertia, do you double down on your faith, or do you decide to simply 'game the system' and see how far you can get?

I know this is a tangent, but the selection of senior clergy in the Catholic Church is interesting because it doesn’t work quite the way you expect. Future bishops are selected before the end of seminary(by grades and connections) and early assignments(right out of seminary; priests marked out as potential bishops spend decades building their resumes, largely with experiences that they themselves don’t pick) determine a lot of the career progression. Becoming a bishop is also a major, further commitment that lots of priests decide they don’t want to make after doing their several decades of necessary experience and further degrees.

There certainly are ambitious career climbers in the upper clergy(and the current pope wasn’t one of these as an archbishop), but these guys knew by the age of, say, 25 that they had a good chance of hitting very senior positions and they’re in their sixties now- and at each step of the process they knew what the next step would be. And the evidence suggests that while less than 100% of them believe in 100% of catholic doctrine, the ones who lose their faith entirely usually leave the clergy- with the archbishop of Paris being the most recent example here. Remember that highly intelligent(nearly all RCC bishops have graduate degrees) senior citizens are a carefully selected population.

Interesting. It sounds like the Vatican is looking for a set of factors which contribute to the long-term success of the church.

Considering the history of the Catholic Church, making sure the well connected yes men are actually competent is understandably a priority.

Moreover, the other big fact of Catholic Church internal politics is really, really long terms of service. It just makes sense to filter in potential candidates for authority positions ahead of time when you have decades long terms of service whose ends can be predicted to within a few years(all senior clergymen submit their resignations at 75 but Vatican bureaucrats processing them act with typical Italian inefficiency).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats