Real, Actual Irony.

[Piscivore]

Right here. (http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2008/12/22/20081222biz-Archbishop1222.html)

LONDON - Thoughtless adherence to economic theories can be as dangerous as blind obedience to political ideology, the head of the Church of the England said Monday, drawing parallels with Nazi Germany.

[Toke]

Here is another on priests.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/12/02/irony/

The man does have a point on capitalism, just a shame he does not have a mirror.

[devnull]

Thanks a lot Pisc, my irony meter just broke.

[Mr Clingford]

The irony is you not knowing what you are talking about if you think that Rowan Williams thoughtlessly adheres to anything or has blind obedience.

[drkitten]

The irony is you not knowing what you are talking about if you think that Rowan Williams thoughtlessly adheres to anything or has blind obedience.

I'm afraid I agree here, Pisc.

[slingblade]

I don't. The irony as I see it is clear if you exchange the word "religious" for either "economic" or "political," given the title of the speaker.

[drkitten]

I don't. The irony as I see it is clear if you exchange the word "religious" for either "economic" or "political," given the title of the speaker.

Except that you're looking at the title, not the speaker.

Just because someone believes in God does NOT mean that they are exhibiting "thoughtless adherence to [religious] theories." And, in fact, Dr. Williams has been a strong proponent of educated belief throughout his entire career. Wikipedia, for example, cites him as writing against slavish adherence to religious orthodoxy and a need for a continuous re-evaluation of doctrine against both progressive revelation as well as the needs of society.

[Skeptic]

Douglas Adams noted in a talk he once gave that, whenever he talks about religion, he at least momentarily thinks to himself, "gee, I hope I don't deeply offend some Christian listeners". He asked himself why he feels that, when -- had he talked about economics -- he would never think, "Gee, I hope I don't deeply offend some Keynsians" (or whatever economic theory his views might disagree with). Why is it, he wondered, that religion gets a free pass?

[slingblade]

Except that you're looking at the title, not the speaker.

I know, because that's the view in which the irony can be seen.

I can see it, because I don't know the speaker, and my mind and eye kind of pass over his name. It's meaningless to me. The title, though, I get, and in that context, I see irony.

You do know the name, and the background attached:

Just because someone believes in God does NOT mean that they are exhibiting "thoughtless adherence to [religious] theories." And, in fact, Dr. Williams has been a strong proponent of educated belief throughout his entire career. Wikipedia, for example, cites him as writing against slavish adherence to religious orthodoxy and a need for a continuous re-evaluation of doctrine against both progressive revelation as well as the needs of society.

in which light, to me, just makes Pisci's observation ironic as well.

:p

[drkitten]

I know, because that's the view in which the irony can be seen.

But it's a false irony.

Is it ironic if Warren Buffett says that there's more to life than devoting it to making money? (Which I believe he has, many, many times.)

Would it be ironic if an Oscar winner said "this is the second best day of my life, right after my wedding?"


I can see it, because I don't know the speaker,

I submit --- with greatest possible respect --- that this really just says something about your prejudices.

Would it be ironic if a black mayor said "we need to reduce the crime rate?" Because, like, he's black, and everyone knows blacks are criminals. Or if the head of the American Jewish World Service said "we believe that people should give generously in the interests of a better life for the entire world," because everyone knows that Jews are money-grubbing bastards who secretly rule the entire world to keep everyone enslaved in poverty?

[Toke]

I submit --- with greatest possible respect --- that this really just says something about your prejudices.


Ok, I am prejudiced against religion and found the OP quite amusing without chekking up on the particular priest/bishop.

I also noted that the man has an excelent point.

Somehow I still find it amusing even if it is unwarranted?
Perhaps I am just transferring it to some other religius character/stereotype?

Whatever.

[slingblade]

But it's a false irony.

Is it ironic if Warren Buffett says that there's more to life than devoting it to making money? (Which I believe he has, many, many times.)

That's a name, though, not a title. I know who he is, vaguely. No, I don't think I see irony in the example.

Would it be ironic if an Oscar winner said "this is the second best day of my life, right after my wedding?"

I don't get the reference, if any, and don't see how it would be ironic.


I submit --- with greatest possible respect --- that this really just says something about your prejudices.

I appreciate the care you took, sincerely, but I've no problem admitting I have a rather...irrational hatred for religion and its representatives in both an abstract sense, and a real one: I detest most of the well-known religious figures. But yeah, I pretty much hate religion, yup. Got me there.

Would it be ironic if a black mayor said "we need to reduce the crime rate?" Because, like, he's black, and everyone knows blacks are criminals.

Not to me, because I don't hold that particular prejudice.
If the mayor were a criminal, however, regardless of race, I'd find it ironic then, and hypocritical, too.

Or if the head of the American Jewish World Service said "we believe that people should give generously in the interests of a better life for the entire world," because everyone knows that Jews are money-grubbing bastards who secretly rule the entire world to keep everyone enslaved in poverty?

Again, not to me because I don't hold that particular prejudice.

I'm not sure those examples are equivalent, but in the interest of discussing the point and not the particulars, I will again freely admit that when it comes to religion, I'm irrational in my feelings, and bigoted. I do find it ironic when religious types warn people about thoughtless adherence and blind obedience, having been reared in a religious environment that advocated just that.

[Sefarst]

But it's a false irony.

Is it ironic if Warren Buffett says that there's more to life than devoting it to making money? (Which I believe he has, many, many times.)

Would it be ironic if an Oscar winner said "this is the second best day of my life, right after my wedding?"

What are you talking about? Rowan Williams wouldn't even be worth mentioning in a news story for making this comment if he wasn't the Archbishop of Canterbury and it weren't for the thoughtless adherence to an ideology (namely one that places importance and emphasis on someone being appointed the title of Archbishop of Canterbury) by so many. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christianity still has as one of its central tenets faith, right? Faith is adherence to an ideology without evidence. Why would you miss the irony here?

[Piscivore]

Not to me, because I don't hold that particular prejudice.
If the mayor were a criminal, however, regardless of race, I'd find it ironic then, and hypocritical, too.
*CoughMarionBarrycough cough cough* :D

I'm not sure those examples are equivalent, but in the interest of discussing the point and not the particulars, I will again freely admit that when it comes to religion, I'm irrational in my feelings, and bigoted. I do find it ironic when religious types warn people about thoughtless adherence and blind obedience, having been reared in a religious environment that advocated just that.
Sling, this is why I'm so fond of you. It's not often you see someone willing to be honest with themselves to that degree.

What are you talking about? Rowan Williams wouldn't even be worth mentioning in a news story for making this comment if he wasn't the Archbishop of Canterbury and it weren't for the thoughtless adherence to an ideology (namely one that places importance and emphasis on someone being appointed the title of Archbishop of Canterbury) by so many.
Quite so.

[drkitten]

What are you talking about? Rowan Williams wouldn't even be worth mentioning in a news story for making this comment if he wasn't the Archbishop of Canterbury and it weren't for the thoughtless adherence to an ideology (namely one that places importance and emphasis on someone being appointed the title of Archbishop of Canterbury) by so many.


And Warren Buffett wouldn't be worth mentioning in a news story for commenting about things more important than making money if he weren't the richest man in the world (or nearly so) and a self-made decabillionaire.

And if it weren't for the thoughtless adherence by millions to the belief that making money is good.

You're just showing your own prejudices again.

And again:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christianity still has as one of its central tenets faith, right?
Faith is adherence to an ideology without evidence.

,,, and that's one of the things that Dr. Williams has been devoting his life to addressing, in part because he believes that there are rational reasons for the Christian faith, and that adherence to the ideology without a critical examination of the belief is harmful.

If anything, the "irony" is in how quickly the supposedly open-minded and rational skeptics here are leaping to stereotype "Christianity" and Dr. Williams without any actual evidence about him.

[drkitten]

That's a name, though, not a title. I know who he is, vaguely. No, I don't think I see irony in the example.


So if I said "the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway said that,..." would that make it ironic? I mean, that's a title, right?


I appreciate the care you took, sincerely, but I've no problem admitting I have a rather...irrational hatred for religion and its representatives in both an abstract sense, and a real one: I detest most of the well-known religious figures. But yeah, I pretty much hate religion, yup. Got me there.

I think you'll find that Rowan Williams is mostly on your side. I think you'll find there are actually a lot of religious types out there who are.

In fact,...

I do find it ironic when religious types warn people about thoughtless adherence and blind obedience, having been reared in a religious environment that advocated just that.

... I think that many of them have exactly the same concerns about abuse that you do, and are making statements against "blind obedience" as part of a campaign to reduce or eliminate this kind of thoughtless justification of what is literally criminal conduct.

[Sefarst]

And Warren Buffett wouldn't be worth mentioning in a news story for commenting about things more important than making money if he weren't the richest man in the world (or nearly so) and a self-made decabillionaire.

Of course. It wouldn't be ironic, though, unless Buffet made a comment like, "People should not use financial institutions to get ahead in life."

And if it weren't for the thoughtless adherence by millions to the belief that making money is good.

Thoughtless? Last time I checked, making money produced tangible results and had practical implications such as being able to buy things.

You're just showing your own prejudices again.

Keep telling yourself that.

,,, and that's one of the things that Dr. Williams has been devoting his life to addressing, in part because he believes that there are rational reasons for the Christian faith, and that adherence to the ideology without a critical examination of the belief is harmful.

If anything, the "irony" is in how quickly the supposedly open-minded and rational skeptics here are leaping to stereotype "Christianity" and Dr. Williams without any actual evidence about him.

Last I checked he didn't provide any evidence for the resurrection or any of the many other claims made by traditional Christianity. Has he changed his mind since this 2003 rebuke of Bishop Spong (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13880.htm)? If anything, Spong is the one trying to be rational and realistic.

[volatile]

... in part because he believes that there are rational reasons for the Christian faith.

He pays lip service to that belief, yes, but only because he needs to justify an irrational belief to himself.

The irony stands; perhaps doubly so.

[Soapy Sam]

Except that you're looking at the title, not the speaker.

Just because someone believes in God does NOT mean that they are exhibiting "thoughtless adherence to [religious] theories." And, in fact, Dr. Williams has been a strong proponent of educated belief throughout his entire career. Wikipedia, for example, cites him as writing against slavish adherence to religious orthodoxy and a need for a continuous re-evaluation of doctrine against both progressive revelation as well as the needs of society.

DRK- I appreciate it's Wikipedia's comment, not yours, but since you are defending the good Archbishop, what do you consider "a continuous re-evaluation of doctrine against both progressive revelation as well as the needs of society." actually means? It looks awfully like gobbledygook to me.Certainly RW is something of a maverick by CoE standards, butif you join a team, you wear the colours: Either the man believes CoE dogma (if they have any left) or he's lying , either to himself or to his flock.

[paximperium]

I see a difference here. Ironic yes. Hypocritical no.

[Mark6]

Douglas Adams noted in a talk he once gave that, whenever he talks about religion, he at least momentarily thinks to himself, "gee, I hope I don't deeply offend some Christian listeners". He asked himself why he feels that, when -- had he talked about economics -- he would never think, "Gee, I hope I don't deeply offend some Keynsians" (or whatever economic theory his views might disagree with). Why is it, he wondered, that religion gets a free pass?

Self-preservation.

People do not shoot someone who offended their economic beliefs. Well, believers in Marxist economics have been known to do that, but only in countries where they already held sway. Whereas offending someone's religious views could get you killed anywhere.

[Soapy Sam]

To be fair, it's some time since the CoE actually burned anyone. The comfy chair was more their style.

[Piscivore]

I see a difference here. Ironic yes. Hypocritical no.

I just said irony. Nowhere has "hypocritical" come up that I see.

[Skeptic]

To be fair, it's some time since the CoE actually burned anyone. The comfy chair was more their style.

As Eddie Izzard said, the CoE is tough: you must agree to be a nice person and have tea and cakes with the Vicar every second Sunday, or YOU DIE!!! This makes it what Izzard called the the "Cake or death" religion:

"YOU! Cake or death?"
"Er... cake please."
"YOU! Cake or death?"
"Er... cake please."
"We're going to run out of cake at this rate."

[paximperium]

I just said irony. Nowhere has "hypocritical" come up that I see.
I know. That seems to be DrKitten's contention.

[Piscivore]

As Eddie Izzard said, the CoE is tough: you must agree to be a nice person and have tea and cakes with the Vicar every second Sunday, or YOU DIE!!! This makes it what Izzard called the the "Cake or death" religion:

"YOU! Cake or death?"
"Er... cake please."
"YOU! Cake or death?"
"Er... cake please."
"We're going to run out of cake at this rate."

Can you join the Church of England even if you've, you know, never even actually been in England?

[paximperium]

Can you join the Church of England even if you've, you know, never even actually been in England?
Are they Episcopalians?

[six7s]

Except that you're looking at the title, not the speaker.

Just because someone believes in God does NOT mean that they are exhibiting "thoughtless adherence to [religious] theories." And, in fact, Dr. Williams has been a strong proponent of educated belief throughout his entire career. Wikipedia, for example, cites him as writing against slavish adherence to religious orthodoxy and a need for a continuous re-evaluation of doctrine against both progressive revelation as well as the needs of society.Williams ought to stick to his knitting

He's a theologian (www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/73 (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/73)) not an economist

He may well have noticed that cash-flow via the collection plate is slowing to a trickle, but this doesn't make him the Chancellor of the Exchequer

If/when he misuses his authority, he openly invites not only (normal) criticism but also ridicule


The Archbishop's gamble
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/religion-anglicanism)Williams says that his hesitancy over disestablishment is caused by the rise of non-belief and the desire of secularists to see religion pushed from the public square.

<snip/>

Of course, if you have long-standing privileges taken away from you, it will feel as though you are being discriminated against. The Church of England should realise that it has had its day. According to the latest edition of Religious Trends, from Christian Research, less than a million people now attend its services regularly (and this is predicted to drop to 100,000 by 2050) and so it has no business being part of the state and purporting to speak for us all. It does not.

The bishops' usual response to this is that they are the voice of all religion in government. The foot in the door for faith, as Rowan Williams put it on the Today programme. This is, of course, nonsense.

[slingblade]

So if I said "the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway said that,..." would that make it ironic? I mean, that's a title, right?

Why are you so determined to educate me by finding an analogy that will show me the error of my ways? Is the man your boyfriend or something? Have I offended you, personally? If I confess and repent, will you grant me absolution? :D

I've explained myself. If it isn't honest enough or good enough for you, then with due respect (which is considerable), I'm afraid you'll have to get by somehow.



I think you'll find that Rowan Williams is mostly on your side. I think you'll find there are actually a lot of religious types out there who are.

In fact,...



... I think that many of them have exactly the same concerns about abuse that you do, and are making statements against "blind obedience" as part of a campaign to reduce or eliminate this kind of thoughtless justification of what is literally criminal conduct.

My side? Is there a side for an irrational hatred of religion? :p

At any rate, until a person stops having imaginary magical friends, he doesn't come anywhere near my side, what- or wherever it is.

[Apathia]

Can you join the Church of England even if you've, you know, never even actually been in England?

Indeed you can as an Episcopalian which is part of the Anglican Brotherhood.
(Provided its not one of the congregations that seperated in protest of the ordination of openly/active gay ministers and a bishop.)

[Jimbo07]

... I think that many of them have exactly the same concerns about abuse that you do, and are making statements against "blind obedience" as part of a campaign to reduce or eliminate this kind of thoughtless justification of what is literally criminal conduct.

Thank you! Saying that it's religion that leads to gay-bashing, spousal battery, financial swindling, etc. is putting the cart waaayyy before the horse...

The ultimate nature of material reality is a fun thing for us to debate on this website, with some of us concluding that God shares some traits with those things we call "imaginary," but it's a debate removed from criminal issues. Religion may be used as a smokescreen for inappropriate actions, but it is no more a "cause" of crime than video games, say.

[fishbob]

At any rate, until a person stops having imaginary magical friends, he doesn't come anywhere near my side, what- or wherever it is.

You are my hero.
I'm gonna borrow that line and use it all over town.

[Piscivore]

At any rate, until a person stops having imaginary magical friends, he doesn't come anywhere near my side, what- or wherever it is.

Well, that leaves me out then. All my friends that aren't online are imaginary- and I'm not entirely sure about myself some of the time. :)

[Big Les]

Thank you! Saying that it's religion that leads to gay-bashing, spousal battery, financial swindling, etc. is putting the cart waaayyy before the horse...

The ultimate nature of material reality is a fun thing for us to debate on this website, with some of us concluding that God shares some traits with those things we call "imaginary," but it's a debate removed from criminal issues. Religion may be used as a smokescreen for inappropriate actions, but it is no more a "cause" of crime than video games, say.

Interesting analogy, and I agree to an extent. But I'd suggest that religion is a rather bigger part of an individual's world-view and decision-making process than video games are. Both influence how one thinks, but only religion has the infrastructure, history, cultural cache (or whatever) behind it actually make that world-view "OK" and something to be followed by others.

[Piscivore]

Interesting analogy, and I agree to an extent. But I'd suggest that religion is a rather bigger part of an individual's world-view and decision-making process than video games are.
That rather depends on the person, yeah? I mean, on average, you're probably right, but for my son and most of his friends that's just not true. Halo absorbs a lot of their time, and my son at least has hardly ever been in a church.

Both influence how one thinks, but only religion has the infrastructure, history, cultural cache (or whatever) behind it actually make that world-view "OK" and something to be followed by others.
Go check out Penny Arcade if you don't think gamers have a culture.

[Big Les]

I've had enough exposure to Anonymous to know that there is a gaming subculture. The key part of that word is "sub". It's largely self-contained and has no real leverage on the day to day lives of others (yet). Almost any religion you care to mention has not only the influence on follower's lives, but a cultural acceptance or approval to back it up.

I see the analogy, and I don't know that you can blame religion for many (most?) crimes. I'm just saying the two things are on a totally different scale, and religion is much farther-reaching in society.

[six7s]

I've had enough exposure to Anonymous to know that there is a gaming subculture. The key part of that word is "sub". It's largely self-contained and has no real leverage on the day to day lives of others (yet).I have a hunch that there are parallels with the 9/11 twoofer 'movement'; an online presence that is (perhaps) inversely proportional to its real-world significance

[Piscivore]

I've had enough exposure to Anonymous to know that there is a gaming subculture. The key part of that word is "sub". It's largely self-contained and has no real leverage on the day to day lives of others (yet). Almost any religion you care to mention has not only the influence on follower's lives, but a cultural acceptance or approval to back it up.
But again, that's going to depend a lot on the follower, isn't it? If this "influence" and "cultural acceptance or approval" is such a powerful effect of a follower, where do the schisms come from?

I see the analogy, and I don't know that you can blame religion for many (most?) crimes. I'm just saying the two things are on a totally different scale, and religion is much farther-reaching in society.
I'm not so sure it's an analogy at all.

[Piscivore]

I have a hunch that there are parallels with the 9/11 twoofer 'movement'; an online presence that is (perhaps) inversely proportional to its real-world significance

I'm sure the stockholders of Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have a slightly different perspective. :)

[articulett]

I think it's ironic that Piscivore imagines himself an expert on "real, actual irony" (which is redundant, btw).

[Darth Rotor]

I think it's ironic that Piscivore imagines himself an expert on "real, actual irony" (which is redundant, btw).
1. One can recognize irony without being an expert on irony.
2. I see nowhere that Piscivore has claimed to be an expert on irony
3. You claim he imagines it.
4. Support your claim or retract it. If you support it, I will accept it.

*Bets the under*

The thread is some fun. I wish to comment on the Archbishop's reported views.

If society doesn't consider the impact of its policies, "we've lost the essential moral compass," he wrote.
Is this a bit of a strawman or a generalization? In the UK and the US both, various members of society present their concern on the impact of policies on those at the roughest end of the line, with variable degrees of success. For example, we've had food stamps in the US for over thirty years. Sometimes rules and practices change. Who is this "society" he wishes to chastise here? Everyone but him? I wonder.
Williams did not specify which assumptions he was referring to, although he has been sharply critical of advocates for unrestrained free markets. He has called the push to banish restrictions on trade and investment "a sort of fundamentalism" and described "unbridled capitalism" as a form of idolatry
Slight point here. While I share his reservatoins on unrestrained free market capitalism, I don't know where on the planet this is practiced. Certainly not in the UK, nor the US.

Beyond that, thanks Pisci for a nice thread. :)

Also, to the archbishop: MOTO is your new nickname. ;)

DR

[Piscivore]

I think it's ironic that Piscivore imagines himself an expert on "real, actual irony" (which is redundant, btw).

I think it's ironic that you've claimed many times that you have me on ignore because I'm nothing more than a n*****-lover apologist and you "prefer" not to pay any attention to people like me, yet here you are.

Oh, wait- that's not irony, that's just dishonesty. Carry on.